BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for researchDiscover
Workspaces
Network
Opportunities
Account
Researcher profile
Peter Mutschke contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.
Trust snapshot
Actions
Identity and collaboration
Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.
Log in to claimDirect collaboration
Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.
Research graph
Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
We will present a new component of our technical framework that was built to provide a brought range of reusable web services for the enhancement of typical scientific retrieval processes. The proposed component computes betweenness of authors in co-authorship networks extracted from publicly available metadata that was harvested using OAI-PMH.
Online Social Networks usually provide no or limited way to access scholarly information provided by Digital Libraries (DLs) in order to share and discuss scholarly content with other online community members. The paper addresses the potentials of Social Networking sites (SNSs) for science and proposes initial use cases as well as a basic bi-directional model called ScholarLib for linking SNSs to scholarly DLs. The major aim of ScholarLib is to make scholarly information provided by DLs accessible at SNSs, and vice versa, to enhance retrieval quality at DL side by social information provided by SNSs.
This paper is about a better understanding on the structure and dynamics of science and the usage of these insights for compensating the typical problems that arises in metadata-driven Digital Libraries. Three science model driven retrieval services are presented: co-word analysis based query expansion, re-ranking via Bradfordizing and author centrality. The services are evaluated with relevance assessments from which two important implications emerge: (1) precision values of the retrieval service are the same or better than the tf-idf retrieval baseline and (2) each service retrieved a disjoint set of documents. The different services each favor quite other - but still relevant - documents than pure term-frequency based rankings. The proposed models and derived retrieval services therefore open up new viewpoints on the scientific knowledge space and provide an alternative framework to structure scholarly information systems.
The paper proposes three different kinds of science models as value-added services that are integrated in the retrieval process to enhance retrieval quality. The paper discusses the approaches Search Term Recommendation, Bradfordizing and Author Centrality on a general level and addresses implementation issues of the models within a real-life retrieval environment.
The first step to handle semantic heterogeneity should be the attempt to enrich the semantic information about documents, i.e. to fill up the gaps in the documents meta-data automatically. Section 2 describes a set of cascading deductive and heuristic extraction rules, which were developed in the project CARMEN for the domain of Social Sciences. The mapping between different terminologies can be done by using intellectual, statistical and/or neural network transfer modules. Intellectual transfers use cross-concordances between different classification schemes or thesauri. Section 3 describes the creation, storage and handling of such transfers.
This paper is about an information retrieval evaluation on three different retrieval-supporting services. All three services were designed to compensate typical problems that arise in metadata-driven Digital Libraries, which are not adequately handled by a simple tf-idf based retrieval. The services are: (1) a co-word analysis based query expansion mechanism and re-ranking via (2) Bradfordizing and (3) author centrality. The services are evaluated with relevance assessments conducted by 73 information science students. Since the students are neither information professionals nor domain experts the question of inter-rater agreement is taken into consideration. Two important implications emerge: (1) the inter-rater agreement rates were mainly fair to moderate and (2) after a data-cleaning step which erased the assessments with poor agreement rates the evaluation data shows that the three retrieval services returned disjoint but still relevant result sets.