Search (1133 results, page 1 of 57)

0.2753411 = product of:
  0.33040932 = sum of:
    0.13305387 = weight(_text_:umfeld in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13305387 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26788878 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.4966758 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.011026227 = weight(_text_:in in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011026227 = score(doc=436,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.12187091 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12187091 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.47534537 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.045180056 = weight(_text_:u in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045180056 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.019278264 = product of:
      0.038556527 = sum of:
        0.038556527 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038556527 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

This paper discusses the use of wiki technology to provide a navigation structure for a collection of newspaper clippings. We overview the architecture of the wiki, discuss the navigation structure and pose the question: is the navigation structure an index, and if so, what type, or is it just a linkage structure or topic map. Does such a distinction really matter? Are these definitions in reality function based?

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.20805465 = product of:
  0.24966559 = sum of:
    0.09979041 = weight(_text_:umfeld in 5871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09979041 = score(doc=5871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26788878 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.37250686 = fieldWeight in 5871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5871)
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 5871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=5871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5871)
    0.09140319 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 5871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09140319 = score(doc=5871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.35650903 = fieldWeight in 5871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5871)
    0.033885043 = weight(_text_:u in 5871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033885043 = score(doc=5871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 5871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5871)
    0.014458697 = product of:
      0.028917395 = sum of:
        0.028917395 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028917395 = score(doc=5871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

In this research, we propose 3 different approaches to measure the semantic relatedness between 2 words: (i) boost the performance of GloVe word embedding model via removing or transforming abnormal dimensions; (ii) linearly combine the information extracted from WordNet and word embeddings; and (iii) utilize word embedding and 12 linguistic information extracted from WordNet as features for Support Vector Regression. We conducted our experiments on 8 benchmark data sets, and computed Spearman correlations between the outputs of our methods and the ground truth. We report our results together with 3 state-of-the-art approaches. The experimental results show that our method can outperform state-of-the-art approaches in all the selected English benchmark data sets.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.20805465 = product of:
  0.24966559 = sum of:
    0.09979041 = weight(_text_:umfeld in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09979041 = score(doc=644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26788878 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.37250686 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
    0.09140319 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09140319 = score(doc=644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.35650903 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
    0.033885043 = weight(_text_:u in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033885043 = score(doc=644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
    0.014458697 = product of:
      0.028917395 = sum of:
        0.028917395 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028917395 = score(doc=644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

While the search interfaces used by common academic digital libraries provide easy access to a wealth of peer-reviewed literature, their interfaces provide little support for exploratory browsing. When faced with a complex search task (such as one that requires knowledge discovery), exploratory browsing is an important first step in an exploratory search process. To more effectively support exploratory browsing, we have designed and implemented a novel academic digital library search interface (KLink Search) with two new features: visually linked keywords and an interactive workspace. To study the potential value of these features, we have conducted a controlled laboratory study with 32 participants, comparing KLink Search to a baseline digital library search interface modeled after that used by IEEE Xplore. Based on subjective opinions, objective performance, and behavioral data, we show the value of adding lightweight visual and interactive features to academic digital library search interfaces to support exploratory browsing.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.17624721 = product of:
  0.21149665 = sum of:
    0.08315867 = weight(_text_:umfeld in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08315867 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26788878 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.0068913912 = weight(_text_:in in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068913912 = score(doc=5915,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.07616932 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07616932 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.29709086 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.028237537 = weight(_text_:u in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028237537 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.017039739 = product of:
      0.034079477 = sum of:
        0.034079477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034079477 = score(doc=5915,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

The outcome of exploratory information retrieval is not only dependent on the effectiveness of individual responses to a set of queries, but also on relevant information retrieved during the entire exploratory search session. We study the effect of search assistance, operationalized as an interactive faceted query suggestion, for both whole-session effectiveness and engagement through interactive faceted query suggestion. A user experiment is reported, where users performed exploratory search tasks, comparing interactive faceted query suggestion and a control condition with only conventional typed-query interaction. Data comprised of interaction and search logs show that the availability of interactive faceted query suggestion substantially improves whole-session effectiveness by increasing recall without sacrificing precision. The increased engagement with interactive faceted query suggestion is targeted to direct situated navigation around the initial query scope, but is not found to improve individual queries on average. The results imply that research in exploratory search should focus on measuring and designing tools that engage users with directed situated navigation support for improving whole-session performance.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.08663846 = product of:
  0.17327692 = sum of:
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=785,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
    0.12926364 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12926364 = score(doc=785,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.50417995 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
    0.033885043 = weight(_text_:u in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033885043 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Der Fokus dieses Artikels liegt auf der Indexerstellung von Publikationen, d. h. der detaillierten Indexierung der Inhalte von Dokumenten statt der Indexierung auf Dokumentebene, welche sich auf das Gesamtthema von Dokumenten beschränkt. Zu letzterer zählen z. B. das Hauptthema von Artikeln, die Sachkatalogisierung von Büchern oder die Erschließung von Objekten in der Museumsdokumentation. Die Worte Index und Register werden synonym benutzt. Das Wort Index ist nicht nur ein Homonym aus unterschiedlichen Bereichen (z. B. Finanzwesen, Mathematik), sondern auch ein Polysem im Publikationswesen, da es in romanischen Sprachen sowohl Inhaltsverzeichnis als auch Register meinen kann. Während im Finanzwesen, Mathematik u. a. die Pluralform Indizes benutzt wird, ist im bibliographischen Sinn Indexe der korrekte Plural (engl.: indexes), es sei denn, es geht um Indices zu alten Werken in lateinischer Sprache (index rerum, index nominum, index verborum). Etymologie, Bedeutung und Plural des Wortes Index erläutert Wellisch ausführlich.

0.06214441 = product of:
  0.12428882 = sum of:
    0.08315867 = weight(_text_:umfeld in 821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08315867 = score(doc=821,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26788878 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 821, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=821)
    0.012892614 = weight(_text_:in in 821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012892614 = score(doc=821,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 821, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=821)
    0.028237537 = weight(_text_:u in 821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028237537 = score(doc=821,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 821, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=821)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Der Terminus Informationsethik (information ethics) wurde Ende der 1980er Jahre im bibliothekarischen Umfeld geprägt und tauchte etwa zeitgleich in den USA und Deutschland auf. Informationsethik umfasst alle ethisch relevanten Fragen, die im Zusammenhang mit Produktion, Speicherung, Erschließung, Verteilung und Nutzung von Informationen auftreten. Informationsethik gehört zu den angewandten oder Bereichsethiken, die sich in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten in großer Zahl gebildet haben. Dazu zählen etwa Wirtschaftsethik, Medizinethik, Technikethik, Computerethik oder Medienethik. Zu beobachten ist ein Trend zu immer spezifischeren Bereichsethiken wie z. B. der Lebensmittelethik oder der Algorithmenethik. Aufteilung und Abgrenzung der Bereichsethiken folgen keinem einheitlichen Prinzip. Daher schwanken ihre Anzahl und ihre Benennungen in der Fachliteratur erheblich. Bereichsethiken überlappen sich z. T. oder stehen bisweilen in einem komplementären Verhältnis. So hat die Informationsethik ohne Zweifel u. a. Bezüge zur Medienethik, zur Technikethik (Computerethik), zur Wirtschaftsethik, zur Wissenschaftsethik und natürlich zur Sozialethik. Im Unterschied zur Allgemeinen Ethik, die sich mit übergreifenden, allgemeinen Aspekten wie Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit oder Wahrhaftigkeit auseinandersetzt, übertragen angewandte Ethiken zum einen allgemeine ethische Prinzipien und Methoden auf bestimmte Lebensbereiche und Handlungsfelder. Zum anderen arbeiten sie spezifische Fragestellungen und Probleme heraus, die charakteristisch für den jeweiligen Bereich sind und die in der Allgemeinen Ethik keine Berücksichtigung finden. Angewandte Ethiken sind grundsätzlich praxisorientiert. Sie zielen darauf, die Akteure der jeweiligen Handlungsfelder für ethische Fragestellungen zu sensibilisieren und das Bewusstsein um eine gemeinsame Wertebasis, die idealerweise in einem Ethikkodex dokumentiert ist, zu stabilisieren.

0.05196502 = product of:
  0.10393004 = sum of:
    0.0068913912 = weight(_text_:in in 800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068913912 = score(doc=800,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 800, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=800)
    0.07616932 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07616932 = score(doc=800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.29709086 = fieldWeight in 800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=800)
    0.020869333 = product of:
      0.041738667 = sum of:
        0.041738667 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041738667 = score(doc=800,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 800, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Information-Retrieval-Modelle -(IR-Modelle) spezifizieren, wie zu einer gegebenen Anfrage die Antwortdokumente aus einer Dokumentenkollektion bestimmt werden. Ausgangsbasis jedes Modells sind dabei zunächst bestimmte Annahmen über die Wissensrepräsentation (s. Teil B Methoden und Systeme der Inhaltserschließung) von Fragen und Dokumenten. Hier bezeichnen wir die Elemente dieser Repräsentationen als Terme, wobei es aus der Sicht des Modells egal ist, wie diese Terme aus dem Dokument (und analog aus der von Benutzenden eingegebenen Anfrage) abgeleitet werden: Bei Texten werden hierzu häufig computerlinguistische Methoden eingesetzt, aber auch komplexere automatische oder manuelle Erschließungsverfahren können zur Anwendung kommen. Repräsentationen besitzen ferner eine bestimmte Struktur. Ein Dokument wird meist als Menge oder Multimenge von Termen aufgefasst, wobei im zweiten Fall das Mehrfachvorkommen berücksichtigt wird. Diese Dokumentrepräsentation wird wiederum auf eine sogenannte Dokumentbeschreibung abgebildet, in der die einzelnen Terme gewichtet sein können. Im Folgenden unterscheiden wir nur zwischen ungewichteter (Gewicht eines Terms ist entweder 0 oder 1) und gewichteter Indexierung (das Gewicht ist eine nichtnegative reelle Zahl). Analog dazu gibt es eine Fragerepräsentation; legt man eine natürlichsprachige Anfrage zugrunde, so kann man die o. g. Verfahren für Dokumenttexte anwenden. Alternativ werden auch grafische oder formale Anfragesprachen verwendet, wobei aus Sicht der Modelle insbesondere deren logische Struktur (etwa beim Booleschen Retrieval) relevant ist. Die Fragerepräsentation wird dann in eine Fragebeschreibung überführt.

0.039798584 = product of:
  0.11939575 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=5843,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
    0.1084995 = sum of:
      0.076204024 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.076204024 = score(doc=5843,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = queryNorm
          0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
      0.03229547 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03229547 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose Personal information management (PIM) is an activity in which people store information items in order to retrieve them later. The purpose of this paper is to test and quantify the effect of factors related to collection size, file properties and workload on file retrieval success and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 289 participants retrieved 1,557 of their shared files in a naturalistic setting. The study used specially developed software designed to collect shared files' names and present them as targets for the retrieval task. The dependent variables were retrieval success, retrieval time and misstep/s. Findings Various factors compromise shared files retrieval including: collection size (large number of files), file properties (multiple versions, size of team sharing the file, time since most recent retrieval and folder depth) and workload (daily e-mails sent and received). The authors discuss theoretical reasons for these negative effects and suggest possible ways to overcome them. Originality/value Retrieval is the main reason people manage personal information. It is essential for retrieval to be successful and efficient, as information cannot be used unless it can be re-accessed. Prior PIM research has assumed that factors related to collection size, file properties and workload affect file retrieval. However, this is the first study to systematically quantify the negative effects of these factors. As each of these factors is expected to be exacerbated in the future, this study is a necessary first step toward addressing these problems.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.039741285 = product of:
  0.23844771 = sum of:
    0.23844771 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23844771 = score(doc=781,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.93004155 = fieldWeight in 781, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=781)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Unter Indexierung versteht man die Zuordnung von inhaltskennzeichnenden Ausdrücken (Indextermen, Indexaten, Erschließungsmerkmalen) zu Dokumenten. Über die zugeteilten Indexterme soll ein gezieltes Auffinden der Dokumente ermöglicht werden. Indexterme können inhaltsbeschreibende Merkmale wie Notationen, Deskriptoren, kontrollierte oder freie Schlagwörter sein; es kann sich auch um reine Stichwörter handeln, die aus dem Text des Dokuments gewonnen werden. Eine Indexierung kann intellektuell, computerunterstützt oder automatisch erfolgen. Computerunterstützte Indexierungsverfahren kombinieren die intellektuelle Indexierung mit automatischen Vorarbeiten. Bei der automatischen Indexierung werden die Indexterme automatisch aus dem Dokumenttext ermittelt und dem Dokument zugeordnet. Automatische Indexierung bedient sich für die Verarbeitung der Zeichenketten im Dokument linguistischer und statistischer Verfahren.

0.03948444 = product of:
  0.118453324 = sum of:
    0.011816275 = weight(_text_:in in 224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011816275 = score(doc=224,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 224, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=224)
    0.106637046 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.106637046 = score(doc=224,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25638393 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.4159272 = fieldWeight in 224, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=224)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Extraktion visueller Merkmale. Basis der Bildähnlichkeitssuche sind die unterschiedlichen visuellen Eigenschaften eines Bildes, seine spezifischen Farb- und Kanteninformationen, welche zunächst in geeigneter Weise erfasst und codiert werden müssen. Dabei kommen sogenannte Deskriptoren zum Einsatz. Die visuelle Information eines Bildes wird in sehr komprimierter Form gespeichert. In unserem Fall hat der zu einem Bild gehörende Deskriptor einen Umfang von nur 96 Byte. Der visuelle Deskriptor codiert sowohl die Farbeigenschaften als auch die spezifischen Kantenmerkmale.

Issue

Teil 2: Extraktion visueller Merkmale, effiziente parallele Suche, flankierende Indexierung auf der Basis textueller Metadaten.

0.03135164 = product of:
  0.09405492 = sum of:
    0.08315867 = weight(_text_:umfeld in 598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08315867 = score(doc=598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26788878 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=598)
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 598, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=598)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Gibt es eine Alternative zu Google? Sollte es sie geben? Die vorherrschende Kritik an den HighTech-Konzernen setzt an ihrer Marktmacht und deren Missbrauch an. Diesen ist politisch mit "Regulierung", "Sanktionierung" und "Sicherstellung von mehr Wettbewerb" zu begegnen. Evgeny Morozov, der aus Weißrussland stammende Technologie- und Internet-Kritiker, wurde mit den Büchern "The Net Delusion" (2011) und "To Save Everything Click Here" (2013), speziell in Deutschland als FAZ-Kolumnist bekannt. Mit seiner Kritik an den Tech-Konzernen setzt er grundsätzlicher als die in der öffentlichen Debatte dominierenden wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhänge an: Er fragt nach der Qualität, Relevanz und Originalität der suchbar und verfügbar gemachten Inhalte. Folgen wir ihm, so würde mehr Wettbewerb unter Suchmaschinen wenig nützen, wenn sich die neuen Player in den Kriterien, auf die ihre Algorithmen festgelegt sind, nicht von Google unterscheiden (und die aus technischer Sicht womöglich schlechter als Google sind).
Morozov hat zudem eine Alternative zu Google geschaffen. Zumindest wird sein Dienst so in Teilen der Öffentlichkeit und im persönlichen Umfeld von Morozov wahrgenommen. Das Angebot trägt den Namen "The Syllabus" (auf Deutsch: "Das Register" oder "Das Verzeichnis"). www.the-syllabus.com. Das ist nach Sara Getz als Frontstellung gegen die "Attention Economy" zu verstehen, in der die Anbieter um die knappe Aufmerksamkeit ihrer Nutzer ringen. Wie erfolgreich sie dabei sind, wird nach Auflagenhöhen, Einschaltquoten, Klicks und "Likes" gemessen. Diese stellen einen Anreiz dar, kürzer, schriller, boulevardesker und oberflächlicher zu schreiben. Im Folgenden werden Beschreibungen und Bewertungen von "The Syllabus" seitens Sara Getz und Niklas Meek wiedergegeben. Hinzu kommen die Selbstbeschreibungen von Syllabus auf der eigenen Webseite und meine persönliche Bilanz, nachdem ich "The Syllabus" ein knappes Jahr genutzt habe.

0.030908478 = product of:
  0.09272543 = sum of:
    0.013075498 = weight(_text_:in in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013075498 = score(doc=941,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.07964993 = sum of:
      0.040895373 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040895373 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = queryNorm
          0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
      0.03875456 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03875456 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047673445 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Inferring the gender of named entities present in a text has several practical applications in information sciences. Existing approaches toward name gender identification rely exclusively on using the gender distributions from labeled data. In the absence of such labeled data, these methods fail. In this article, we propose a two-stage model that is able to infer the gender of names present in text without requiring explicit name-gender labels. We use coreference resolution as the backbone for our proposed model. To aid coreference resolution where the existing contextual information does not suffice, we use a retrieval-assisted context aggregation framework. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art name gender inference is possible without supervision. Our proposed method matches or outperforms several supervised approaches and commercially used methods on five English language datasets from different domains.

Date

22. 3.2023 12:00:14

0.02976013 = product of:
  0.08928039 = sum of:
    0.011026227 = weight(_text_:in in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011026227 = score(doc=70,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
    0.07825416 = weight(_text_:u in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07825416 = score(doc=70,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.5012949 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Ob bei Corona, dem Klimawandel oder der Wirksamkeit von Impfungen: Immer wieder werden in politischen Diskussionen grundlegende wissenschaftliche Fakten falsch dargestellt. In einem großformatigen Infoposter erklären wir die fünf üblichsten Strategien, mit denen die Nebelmaschine der Desinformation arbeitet.

Content

Vgl. auch: https://www.klimafakten.de/meldung/p-l-u-r-v-dies-sind-die-haeufigsten-desinformations-tricks-von-wissenschafts-leugnern.

Source

https://www.klimafakten.de/meldung/p-l-u-r-v-das-sind-die-haeufigsten-methoden-der-desinformation-neue-infografik-im

0.029541615 = product of:
  0.05908323 = sum of:
    0.013504315 = weight(_text_:in in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013504315 = score(doc=753,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
    0.031947125 = weight(_text_:u in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031947125 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.20465277 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
    0.013631791 = product of:
      0.027263582 = sum of:
        0.027263582 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027263582 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Der 70. Band der BIPRA-Reihe beschäftigt sich mit der Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung im Kontext etablierter Verfahren und technologischer Innovationen. Treffen heterogene Erzeugnisse unterschiedlicher Methoden und Systeme aufeinander, müssen minimale Anforderungen an die Qualität der Inhaltserschließung festgelegt werden. Die Qualitätsfrage wird zurzeit in verschiedenen Zusammenhängen intensiv diskutiert und im vorliegenden Band aufgegriffen. In diesem Themenfeld aktive Autor:innen beschreiben aus ihrem jeweiligen Blickwinkel unterschiedliche Aspekte zu Metadaten, Normdaten, Formaten, Erschließungsverfahren und Erschließungspolitik. Der Band versteht sich als Handreichung und Anregung für die Diskussion um die Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung.

Content

Inhalt: Editorial - Michael Franke-Maier, Anna Kasprzik, Andreas Ledl und Hans Schürmann Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung - Ein Überblick aus 50 Jahren (1970-2020) - Andreas Ledl Fit for Purpose - Standardisierung von inhaltserschließenden Informationen durch Richtlinien für Metadaten - Joachim Laczny Neue Wege und Qualitäten - Die Inhaltserschließungspolitik der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek - Ulrike Junger und Frank Scholze Wissensbasen für die automatische Erschließung und ihre Qualität am Beispiel von Wikidata - Lydia Pintscher, Peter Bourgonje, Julián Moreno Schneider, Malte Ostendorff und Georg Rehm Qualitätssicherung in der GND - Esther Scheven Qualitätskriterien und Qualitätssicherung in der inhaltlichen Erschließung - Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) Coli-conc - Eine Infrastruktur zur Nutzung und Erstellung von Konkordanzen - Uma Balakrishnan, Stefan Peters und Jakob Voß Methoden und Metriken zur Messung von OCR-Qualität für die Kuratierung von Daten und Metadaten - Clemens Neudecker, Karolina Zaczynska, Konstantin Baierer, Georg Rehm, Mike Gerber und Julián Moreno Schneider Datenqualität als Grundlage qualitativer Inhaltserschließung - Jakob Voß Bemerkungen zu der Qualitätsbewertung von MARC-21-Datensätzen - Rudolf Ungváry und Péter Király Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND - Das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten - Sina Menzel, Hannes Schnaitter, Josefine Zinck, Vivien Petras, Clemens Neudecker, Kai Labusch, Elena Leitner und Georg Rehm Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) - Fabian Steeg und Adrian Pohl Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen - Überlegungen zur Qualität - Heidrun Wiesenmüller Inhaltserschließung für Discovery-Systeme gestalten - Jan Frederik Maas Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext des Information Retrievals - Christian Wartena und Koraljka Golub Die Qualität der Fremddatenanreicherung FRED - Cyrus Beck Quantität als Qualität - Was die Verbünde zur Verbesserung der Inhaltserschließung beitragen können - Rita Albrecht, Barbara Block, Mathias Kratzer und Peter Thiessen Hybride Künstliche Intelligenz in der automatisierten Inhaltserschließung - Harald Sack

Editor

Franke-Maier, M., A. Kasprzik, A. Ledl u. H. Schürmann

Footnote

Vgl.: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110691597/html. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110691597. Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 73(2022) H.2-3, S.131-132 (B. Lorenz u. V. Steyer). Weitere Rezension in: o-bib 9(20229 Nr.3. (Martin Völkl) [https://www.o-bib.de/bib/article/view/5843/8714].

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.028615436 = product of:
  0.085846305 = sum of:
    0.07571807 = product of:
      0.2271542 = sum of:
        0.2271542 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2271542 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.404176 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.010128236 = weight(_text_:in in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010128236 = score(doc=862,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges- summary and question answering- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and sequential questions initially posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, overall quality, and plagiarism risks. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's true initial thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswerable.

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.02764076 = product of:
  0.05528152 = sum of:
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=180,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.028237537 = weight(_text_:u in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028237537 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.016147735 = product of:
      0.03229547 = sum of:
        0.03229547 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03229547 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16694428 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Purpose This investigation aims to examine the differences and similarities between activity tracking technology users from two regions (the USA and Germany) in their intended privacy-related behavior. The focus lies on data handling after hypothetical discontinuance of use, data protection and privacy policy seeking, and privacy concerns. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected through an online survey in 2019. In order to identify significant differences between participants from Germany and the USA, the chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test were applied. Findings The intensity of several privacy-related concerns was significantly different between the two groups. The majority of the participants did not inform themselves about the respective data privacy policies or terms and conditions before installing an activity tracking application. The majority of the German participants knew that they could request the deletion of all their collected data. In contrast, only 35% out of 68 participants from the US knew about this option. Research limitations/implications This study intends to raise awareness about managing the collected health and fitness data after stopping to use activity tracking technologies. Furthermore, to reduce privacy and security concerns, the involvement of the government, companies and users is necessary to handle and share data more considerably and in a sustainable way. Originality/value This study sheds light on users of activity tracking technologies from a broad perspective (here, participants from the USA and Germany). It incorporates not only concerns and the privacy paradox but (intended) user behavior, including seeking information on data protection and privacy policy and handling data after hypothetical discontinuance of use of the technology.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.024664879 = product of:
  0.07399464 = sum of:
    0.06309839 = product of:
      0.18929517 = sum of:
        0.18929517 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18929517 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.404176 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.010896247 = weight(_text_:in in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010896247 = score(doc=5669,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.024451822 = product of:
  0.073355466 = sum of:
    0.016880395 = weight(_text_:in in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016880395 = score(doc=3226,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
    0.056475073 = weight(_text_:u in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056475073 = score(doc=3226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Biomedizinische Studien haben sich oft als methodisch unzuverlässig herausgestellt, was ihre Ergebnisse in Zweifel zieht. Viele Wissenschaftler sehen das Fach deshalb in einer Krise. Ein Umdenken ist nötig - und hat bereits eingesetzt.

0.02414788 = product of:
  0.072443634 = sum of:
    0.045180056 = weight(_text_:u in 797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045180056 = score(doc=797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 797, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=797)
    0.027263582 = product of:
      0.054527164 = sum of:
        0.054527164 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054527164 = score(doc=797,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14420812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047673445 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 797, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Interaktives Information Retrieval (IIR) zielt darauf ab, die komplexen Interaktionen zwischen Nutzer*innen und Systemen im IR zu verstehen. Es gibt umfangreiche Literatur zu Themen wie der formalen Modellierung des Suchverhaltens, der Simulation der Interaktion, den interaktiven Funktionen zur Unterstützung des Suchprozesses und der Evaluierung interaktiver Suchsysteme. Dabei ist die interaktive Unterstützung nicht allein auf die Suche beschränkt, sondern hat ebenso die Hilfe bei Navigation und Exploration zum Ziel.

0.02389699 = product of:
  0.07169097 = sum of:
    0.007796719 = weight(_text_:in in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007796719 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06484802 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.06389425 = weight(_text_:u in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06389425 = score(doc=108,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15610404 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047673445 = queryNorm
        0.40930554 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag beschreibt a) die Ergebnisse einer Literaturstudie zur qualitativen Wahrnehmung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen, b) die Konstruktion eines daraus abgeleiteten Kriterienkatalogs zur Wahrnehmung der Qualität wissenschaftlicher Publikationen sowie c) der Überprüfung dieses Katalogs in qualitativen Interviews mit Wissenschaflterinnen und Wissenschaftlern aus dem Fachspektrum Chemie, Physik, Biologie, Materialwissenschaft und Engineering. Es zeigte sich, dass die Wahrnehmung von Qualität auf äußerlichen und von außen herangetragenen Faktoren, inhaltlichen / semantischen Faktoren und sprachlichen, syntaktischen sowie strukturellen Faktoren beruht.