Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × author_ss:"Stock, W.G."
  1. Schmidt, S.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in images : a study in emotional information retrieval (2009) 0.04
    0.04207831 = product of:
      0.08415662 = sum of:
        0.08415662 = product of:
          0.16831324 = sum of:
            0.16831324 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.16831324 = score(doc=2792,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.5649015 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Some documents provoke emotions in people viewing them. Will it be possible to describe emotions consistently and use this information in retrieval systems? We tested collective (statistically aggregated) emotion indexing using images as examples. Considering psychological results, basic emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness. This study follows an approach developed by Lee and Neal (2007) for music emotion retrieval and applies scroll bars for tagging basic emotions and their intensities. A sample comprising 763 persons tagged emotions caused by images (retrieved from www.Flickr.com) applying scroll bars and (linguistic) tags. Using SPSS, we performed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. For more than half of the images, the test persons have clear emotion favorites. There are prototypical images for given emotions. The document-specific consistency of tagging using a scroll bar is, for some images, very high. Most of the (most commonly used) linguistic tags are on the basic level (in the sense of Rosch's basic level theory). The distributions of the linguistic tags in our examples follow an inverse power-law. Hence, it seems possible to apply collective image emotion tagging to image information systems and to present a new search option for basic emotions. This article is one of the first steps in the research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR).
  2. Knautz, K.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in videos (2011) 0.03
    0.034356795 = product of:
      0.06871359 = sum of:
        0.06871359 = product of:
          0.13742718 = sum of:
            0.13742718 = weight(_text_:tagging in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13742718 = score(doc=295,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.4612401 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  3. Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsinformatik : Fundierung, Gegenstand und Methoden (1980) 0.03
    0.027350392 = product of:
      0.054700784 = sum of:
        0.054700784 = product of:
          0.10940157 = sum of:
            0.10940157 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10940157 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Ratio. 22(1980), S.155-164
  4. Stock, W.G.: Informationsmangel trotz Überfluß : Informationsgesellschaft verlangt neue Berufe und Berufsbilder (1995) 0.03
    0.027350392 = product of:
      0.054700784 = sum of:
        0.054700784 = product of:
          0.10940157 = sum of:
            0.10940157 = weight(_text_:22 in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10940157 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Insider. 1995, Nr.4, Juli, S.19-22
  5. Stock, W.G.: Concepts and semantic relations in information science (2010) 0.02
    0.024293922 = product of:
      0.048587844 = sum of:
        0.048587844 = product of:
          0.09717569 = sum of:
            0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09717569 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.326146 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Concept-based information retrieval and knowledge representation are in need of a theory of concepts and semantic relations. Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of knowledge organization systems (KOS) (such as ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 in the U.S.A. or DIN 2331:1980 in Germany) do not consider results of concept theory and theory of relations to the full extent. They are not able to unify the currently different worlds of traditional controlled vocabularies, of the social web (tagging and folksonomies) and of the semantic web (ontologies). Concept definitions as well as semantic relations are based on epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and critical theory). A concept is determined via its intension and extension as well as by definition. We will meet the problem of vagueness by introducing prototypes. Some important definitions are concept explanations (after Aristotle) and the definition of family resemblances (in the sense of Wittgenstein). We will model concepts as frames (according to Barsalou). The most important paradigmatic relation in KOS is hierarchy, which must be arranged into different classes: Hyponymy consists of taxonomy and simple hyponymy, meronymy consists of many different part-whole-relations. For practical application purposes, the transitivity of the given relation is very important. Unspecific associative relations are of little help to our focused applications and should be replaced by generalizable and domain-specific relations. We will discuss the reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity of paradigmatic relations as well as the appearance of specific semantic relations in the different kinds of KOS (folksonomies, nomenclatures, classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies). Finally, we will pick out KOS as a central theme of the Semantic Web.
  6. Stock, W.G.: Endnutzersystem für internationale Geschäftsinformationen (1998) 0.02
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = product of:
          0.09572637 = sum of:
            0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 2407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09572637 = score(doc=2407,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2407, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2407)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Password. 1998, H.10, S.22-28
  7. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02
    0.017093996 = product of:
      0.03418799 = sum of:
        0.03418799 = product of:
          0.06837598 = sum of:
            0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06837598 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  8. Schumann, L.; Stock, W.G.: ¬Ein umfassendes ganzheitliches Modell für Evaluation und Akzeptanzanalysen von Informationsdiensten : Das Information Service Evaluation (ISE) Modell (2014) 0.01
    0.011965796 = product of:
      0.023931593 = sum of:
        0.023931593 = product of:
          0.047863185 = sum of:
            0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047863185 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1492, 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=1492)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 9.2014 18:56:46
  9. Stock, W.G.: Qualitätskriterien von Suchmaschinen : Checkliste für Retrievalsysteme (2000) 0.01
    0.008546998 = product of:
      0.017093996 = sum of:
        0.017093996 = product of:
          0.03418799 = sum of:
            0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 5773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03418799 = score(doc=5773,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5773, 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=5773)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Password. 2000, H.5, S.22-31
  10. Stock, W.G.: Hochschulmanagement, Information Appliances, Fairness als Grundsatz : Information und Mobilität (2002) 0.01
    0.008546998 = product of:
      0.017093996 = sum of:
        0.017093996 = product of:
          0.03418799 = sum of:
            0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 1364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03418799 = score(doc=1364,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1364, 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=1364)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2003 19:39:36
  11. Stock, W.G.: Informational cities : analysis and construction of cities in the knowledge society (2011) 0.01
    0.008546998 = product of:
      0.017093996 = sum of:
        0.017093996 = product of:
          0.03418799 = sum of:
            0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03418799 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05046712 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4452, 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=4452)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    3. 7.2011 19:22:49