000 | 01931nam a22002417a 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
003 | ZW-GwMSU | ||
005 | 20221128123742.0 | ||
008 | 221128b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
040 |
_aMSU _cMSU _erda |
||
100 | 1 |
_aDe Sabbata, Stefano _eauthor |
|
245 | 1 | 0 |
_aCriteria of geographic relevance: an experimental study _ccreated by Stefano De Sabbata &Tumasch Reichenbacher |
264 |
_aZurich: _bTaylor and Francis _c2012 |
||
336 |
_2rdacontent _atext _btxt |
||
337 |
_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn |
||
338 |
_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc |
||
440 | _vVolume , number , | ||
520 | _aThe relevance of geographic information has become an emerging problem in geographic information science due to an enormous increase in volumes of data at high spatial, temporal, and semantic resolution, because of ever faster rates of new data capturing. At the same time, it is not clear whether the concept of relevance developed in information science and implemented for document-based information retrieval can be directly applied to this new, highly dynamic setting. In this study, we analyze the criteria users apply when judging the relevance of geographic entities in a given mobile usage context. Two different experiments have been set up in order to gather users' opinions on a set of possible criteria, and their relevance judgements in a given scenario. The importance ascribed to the criteria in both experiments clearly implies that a new concept of relevance is required when dealing with geographic entities instead of digital documents. This new concept of ‘Geographic Relevance’ is highly dependent on personal mobility and user's activity, whose understanding may in turn be refined by the assimilation of ‘Geographic Relevance’ itself. | ||
650 | _ageographic relevance | ||
650 | _acriteria of relevance | ||
650 | _amobility | ||
856 | _uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.639303 | ||
942 |
_2lcc _cJA |
||
999 |
_c160634 _d160634 |