Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Blandford, A."
  1. Makri, S.; Blandford, A.: Coming across information serendipitously : Part 2: A classification framework (2012) 0.01
    0.00832516 = product of:
      0.058276117 = sum of:
        0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029138058 = score(doc=396,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
        0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029138058 = score(doc=396,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - In "Coming across information serendipitously - Part 1: a process model" the authors identified common elements of researchers' experiences of "coming across information serendipitously". These experiences involve a mix of unexpectedness and insight and lead to a valuable, unanticipated outcome. In this article, the authors aim to show how the elements of unexpectedness, insight and value form a framework for subjectively classifying whether a particular experience might be considered serendipitous and, if so, just how serendipitous. Design/methodology/approach - The classification framework was constructed by analysing 46 experiences of coming across information serendipitously provided by 28 interdisciplinary researchers during critical incident interviews. "Serendipity stories" were written to summarise each experience and to facilitate their comparison. The common elements of unexpectedness, insight and value were identified in almost all the experiences. Findings - The presence of different mixes of unexpectedness, insight and value in the interviewees' experiences define a multi-dimensional conceptual space (which the authors call the "serendipity space"). In this space, different "strengths" of serendipity exist. The classification framework can be used to reason about whether an experience falls within the serendipity space and, if so, how "pure" or "dilute" it is. Originality/value - The framework provides researchers from various disciplines with a structured means of reasoning about and classifying potentially serendipitous experiences.
  2. Nichols, D.M.; Paynter, G.W.; Chan, C.-H.; Bainbridge, D.; McKay, D.; Twidale, M.B.; Blandford, A.: Experiences in deploying metadata analysis tools for institutional repositories (2009) 0.00
    0.004806533 = product of:
      0.03364573 = sum of:
        0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016822865 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
        0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016822865 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 47(2009) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx
  3. Rimmer, J.; Warwick, C.; Blandford, A.; Gow, J.; Buchanan, G.: ¬An examination of the physical and the digital qualities of humanities research (2008) 0.00
    0.001780432 = product of:
      0.024926046 = sum of:
        0.024926046 = product of:
          0.04985209 = sum of:
            0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04985209 = score(doc=2098,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.302856 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Traditionally humanities scholars have worked in physical environments and with physical artefacts. Libraries are familiar places, built on cultural traditions over thousands of years, and books are comfortable research companions. Digital tools are a more recent addition to the resources available to a researcher. This paper explores both the physical and the digital qualities of modern humanities research, drawing on existing literature and presenting a study of humanities scholars' perceptions of the research resources they use. We highlight aspects of the physical and digital that can facilitate or hinder the researcher, focusing on three themes that emerge from the data: the working environment; the experience of finding resources; and the experience of working with documents. Rather than aiming to replace physical texts and libraries by digital surrogates, providers need to recognise the complementary roles they play: digital information environments have the potential to provide improved access and analysis features and the facility to exploit the library from any place, while the physical library and resources provide greater authenticity, trustworthiness and the demand to be in a particular place with important material properties.
  4. Pontis, S.; Blandford, A.; Greifeneder, E.; Attalla, H.; Neal, D.: Keeping up to date : an academic researcher's information journey (2017) 0.00
    7.264289E-4 = product of:
      0.010170003 = sum of:
        0.010170003 = product of:
          0.020340007 = sum of:
            0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020340007 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35