Search (1401 results, page 3 of 71)

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 4534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=4534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 4534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4534)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes WorldWideWeb (WWW) software developed at CERN to provide hypertext links to the resources on the Internet telecommunications network. Outlines how to access WWW, itd features and approach to handling of multiple document types on multiplatform servers and to multiple clients

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 6303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=6303,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 6303, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6303)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews Caere PageKeeper, a document management application with integrated OCR intended for single-system users or small workgroups. Key features are: document handling of both text and image, automatic indexing of significant words in documents, image compression, e-mail and document annotation faciliites. Describe system requirements, installation, document input, organization, indexing, searching, viewing and annotating

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 1471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=1471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 1471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1471)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Attempts to gauge the user friendliness of the system. Lists a number of recommendations for the development of the user friendliness of the system, the handling of error messages and the training of users

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 2049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=2049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 2049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2049)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Compares 5 browsers for searching WWW: NCSA Mosaic (version 2.0 alpha 7 for Windows); Cello (version 1.01a); Netscape Navigator for MS Windows (version 0.94 beta) EINet's Web; Internet Works Lite (version 1.0). Compares: speed and setup, HTTP handling, FTP, Telnet, Gopher and WAIS, bookmarks, e-mial and news communications functions

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews 3 leading edge approaches to information retrieval software currently on the market: Krakatoa, from Information Handling Services; Excalibur Technologies, incorporating ConQuest Technologies; and the Hybrid Distributed Database, in which text encoding is combined with Structured Query Language

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews briefly hypertext techniques in information handling and retrieval and defines its salient features. Focuses on its strengths and weaknesses as a teaching tool and its potential impact on education

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=3568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers aspects of language and linguistic studies that directly affect information handling including: electronic word processing (hyphenation, spelling correction, dictionary-based synonym provision); man-machine communication; machine understanding of spoken language; automatic indexing; and machine translation

0.07000144 = product of:
  0.28000575 = sum of:
    0.28000575 = weight(_text_:handling in 2354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28000575 = score(doc=2354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.69297814 = fieldWeight in 2354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2354)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Contains about 5.000 terms in one alphabetical sequence, incorporating 6 themes (information sources, information handling, computers and telecommunications, management, research methodology and publishing)

0.06929789 = product of:
  0.27719155 = sum of:
    0.27719155 = weight(_text_:handling in 2927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27719155 = score(doc=2927,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.68601334 = fieldWeight in 2927, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2927)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of Information Resource Management has been used as a working model in a project which aims at improving the awareness of information handling in Danish industrial companies. Describes the content of the project and the results which have been obtained until now, almost half way through the project. An important part of the project has been to analyse and describe the actual situation of information handling in 3 companies and to come up with proposals for improvements to the problems encountered. Some of the practical experiences gained during that process are described.

0.06929789 = product of:
  0.27719155 = sum of:
    0.27719155 = weight(_text_:handling in 6858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27719155 = score(doc=6858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.68601334 = fieldWeight in 6858, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Why use Java? Object oriented primer. Java applets. The Java language. Branching and looping. Graphics. Animation and multithreading. Handling exceptions. The Java.awt package. Handling events. Windows, dialogs and menus. Input and output streams. Modifiers and packages. Java and C++

0.06929789 = product of:
  0.27719155 = sum of:
    0.27719155 = weight(_text_:handling in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27719155 = score(doc=150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.68601334 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries have become an established part of scientific and social cultures and provide an essential mechanism for storing, preserving and sharing documentary records of various types of human endeavour. In recent years, new information handling technologies have emerged and these have significantly influenced the basic nature of conventional paper based libraries and have created a need for new types of 'electronic library'. Discusses some of the changes that have taken place within library systems as a consequence of the emergence of new computerized information handling techniques and presents case studies which outline various developments taking place at the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory, School of Computing and Mathematics, Teeside University, UK, relating to the creation of electronic books and dynamic electronic libraries, including the Open Access Student Information Service (OASIS)

0.06929789 = product of:
  0.27719155 = sum of:
    0.27719155 = weight(_text_:handling in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27719155 = score(doc=697,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.40406144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.68601334 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.272122 = idf(docFreq=227, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The technical and administrative problems involved in the storage, handling, and retrieval of library information are emphasized throughout this detailed account of the present equipment used. Reference is made to previous studies and suggestions given for future research. Particular attention is paid to the need for fundamental systems studies and for full investigation of the requirements of the scholar. The author concludes that the problem was proceeded in a piecemeal and 'gadget' fashion and stresses the need for more detailed analysis of the usefulness and economic justification of each separate piece of machinery, without, however, losing sight of the problem in its entirely. By way of practical illustration a method for making the recources of Harvard University's Lamont Library available to all colleges is suggested at the end.

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 2445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=2445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 2445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2445)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=3299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

State of the art review of the criteria used to judge and evaluate the quality of databases, including: content, ease of use, accessibility, customer support, documentation, and value to cost ratio. Concludes that the principle factor governing quality is content, defined by the scope and the coverage of the database and its currency, accuracy, consistency and completeness. Scope is determined by its composition and coverage, including time period, number of periodicals and other primary sources, number of articles and geographic and language distribution. Currency is measured by the time lag between publication of the primary source and availability of the corresponding records in the database. Accuracy is governed by the extent to which the records are free from errors of all types. Consistency depends on the extent to which records within the database follow the same rules. Completeness is measured by the consistency with which applicable data elements are assigned to all the records in the database. Reviews the major contributions to the literature in the field and summarizes the background of milestone studies

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=3210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this report, we investigate how retrieving information can be improved through task-related indexing of documents based an ontologies. Different index types, varying from content-based keywords to structured task based indexing ontologies, are compared in an experiment that simulates the task of creating instructional material from a database of source material. To be able to judge the added value of task- and ontology-related indexes, traditional information retrieval performance measures are extended with new measures reflecting the quality of the material produced with the retrieved information. The results of the experiment show that a structured task-based indexing ontology improves the quality of the product created from retrieved material only to some extent, but that it certainly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of search and retrieval and precision of use.

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 3235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=3235,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3235, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3235)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article describes a collaboratively engineered general-purpose knowledge management (KM) ontology that can be used by practitioners, researchers, and educators. The ontology is formally characterized in terms of nearly one hundred definitions and axioms that evolved from a Delphi-like process involving a diverse panel of over 30 KM practitioners and researchers. The ontology identifies and relates knowledge manipulation activities that an entity (e.g., an organization) can perform to operate an knowledge resources. It introduces a taxonomy for these resources, which indicates classes of knowledge that may be stored, embedded, and/or represented in an entity. It recognizes factors that influence the conduct of KM both within and across KM episodes. The Delphi panelists judge the ontology favorably overall: its ability to unify KM concepts, its comprehensiveness, and utility. Moreover, various implications of the ontology for the KM field are examined as indicators of its utility for practitioners, educators, and researchers.

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this issue Maglaughin and Sonnenwald provided 12 graduate students with searches related to the student's work and asked them to judge the twenty most recent retrieved representations by highlighting passages thought to contribute to relevance, marking out passages detracting from relevance, and providing a relevant, partially relevant or relevant judgement on each. By recorded interview they were asked about how these decisions were made and to describe the three classes of judgement. The union of criteria identified in past studies did not seem to fully capture the information supplied so a new set was produced and coding agreement found to be adequate. Twenty-nine criteria were identified and grouped into six categories based upon the focus of the criterion. Multiple criteria are used for most judgements, and most criteria may have either a positive or negative effect. Content was the most frequently mentioned criterion.

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explicates the common ground between two currently independent fields of inquiry, namely information arts and information science, and suggests a framework that could unite them as a single field of study. The article defines and clarifies the meaning of information art and presents an axiological framework that could be used to judge the value of works of information art. The axiological framework is applied to examples of works of information art to demonstrate its use. The article argues that both information arts and information science could be studied under a common framework; namely, the domain-analytic or sociocognitive approach. It also is argued that the unification of the two fields could help enhance the meaning and scope of both information science and information arts and therefore be beneficial to both fields.

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1938)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article introduces a new task-based evaluation measure called Relevance Prediction that is a more intuitive measure of an individual's performance on a real-world task than interannotator agreement. Relevance Prediction parallels what a user does in the real world task of browsing a set of documents using standard search tools, i.e., the user judges relevance based on a short summary and then that same user - not an independent user - decides whether to open (and judge) the corresponding document. This measure is shown to be a more reliable measure of task performance than LDC Agreement, a current gold-standard based measure used in the summarization evaluation community. Our goal is to provide a stable framework within which developers of new automatic measures may make stronger statistical statements about the effectiveness of their measures in predicting summary usefulness. We demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept methodology for automatic metric developers - that a current automatic evaluation measure has a better correlation with Relevance Prediction than with LDC Agreement and that the significance level for detected differences is higher for the former than for the latter.

0.06381464 = product of:
  0.25525856 = sum of:
    0.25525856 = weight(_text_:judge in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25525856 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49805635 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06442181 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The potential of summary personalization is high, because a summary that would be useless to decide the relevance of a document if summarized in a generic manner, may be useful if the right sentences are selected that match the user interest. In this paper we defend the use of a personalized summarization facility to maximize the density of relevance of selections sent by a personalized information system to a given user. The personalization is applied to the digital newspaper domain and it used a user-model that stores long and short term interests using four reference systems: sections, categories, keywords and feedback terms. On the other side, it is crucial to measure how much information is lost during the summarization process, and how this information loss may affect the ability of the user to judge the relevance of a given document. The results obtained in two personalization systems show that personalized summaries perform better than generic and generic-personalized summaries in terms of identifying documents that satisfy user preferences. We also considered a user-centred direct evaluation that showed a high level of user satisfaction with the summaries.