Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.058871455 = product of:
  0.14717864 = sum of:
    0.08816963 = weight(_text_:needs in 7181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08816963 = score(doc=7181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233039 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.37834707 = fieldWeight in 7181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7181)
    0.059009008 = weight(_text_:22 in 7181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059009008 = score(doc=7181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7181)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Notes that the information needs and information seeking behaviour of scholars and students in interdisciplinary fields has been studied very little. The few scattered studies available suggest that such fields may require striking and distinctive information seeking adaptations by researchers that mark this area as different and very much deserving of research. Discusses the kinds of research needed at both basic and applied levels

Date

14. 4.1997 20:22:55

0.035267852 = product of:
  0.17633925 = sum of:
    0.17633925 = weight(_text_:needs in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17633925 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233039 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.75669414 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.015586334 = product of:
  0.07793167 = sum of:
    0.07793167 = weight(_text_:needs in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07793167 = score(doc=2707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.233039 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.33441472 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Getty art history information program carried out a two-year project to study how humanities scholars operate as end users of online databases. Visiting scholars at the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities in Santa Monica, California, were offered the opportunity to so unlimited subsidized searching of DIALOG databases. This first report from the project analyzes the vocabulary terms twenty-two scholars used in their natural language descriptions of their information needs and in their online searches. The data were extracted from 165 natural language statements and 1.068 search terms. Vocabulary categories used by humanities scholars were found to differ markedly from those used in the sciences, a fact that imposes distinctive demands on thesaurus development and the design of online information systems. Humanities scholars searched for far more named individuals, geographical terms, chronological terms, and discipline terms than was the case in a comparative science sample. The analysis provides substantial support for the growing perception that information needs of humanities scholars are distinct from those of scholars in other fields, and that the design of information-providing systems for these scholars must take their unique qualitites into account

0.014603985 = product of:
  0.07301992 = sum of:
    0.07301992 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301992 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.008851351 = product of:
  0.044256754 = sum of:
    0.044256754 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044256754 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, 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=54)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23

0.008816963 = product of:
  0.044084813 = sum of:
    0.044084813 = weight(_text_:needs in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044084813 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233039 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.18917353 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0002. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.

0.0073761265 = product of:
  0.03688063 = sum of:
    0.03688063 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03688063 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.