Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02964738 = product of:
  0.05929476 = sum of:
    0.05929476 = sum of:
      0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009374379 = score(doc=155,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 155, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=155)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=155,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 155, 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=155)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that libraries, traditional and digital, must support learning, especially the acquisition and enhancement of scientific reasoning skills. This paper discusses how classificatory structures, such as a faceted thesaurus, can be enhanced for novice science learning. Physical geography is used as the domain discipline, and the Alexandria Digital Earth Prototype project provides the test bed for instructional materials and user analyses. The use of concept maps and topic maps for developing digital learning spaces is briefly discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=227,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 227, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many competing definitions for the terms data, information, metadata, and knowledge can be traced in the library and information science literature. The lack of a clear consensus in the way reference is made to the corresponding fundamental concepts is intensified if one considers additional disciplinary perspectives, e.g. database technology, data mining, etc. In the present paper, we use a common sense approach, to selectively survey the literature, and define these terms in a way that can advance the interdisciplinary development of information systems.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

Type

a

0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 2690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=2690,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 2690, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries, bibliographic databases, and the WWW/Intemet do not provide access to a coherent, unified class of works known as models. This paper presents a framework for the cataloging and classification of one class of models, namely scientific models. Scientific models are defined as works and models classification is based on facet analysis.

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=72,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A societyled, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=447,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The well-documented limitations of journal impact factor rankings and perceptual ratings, the evolving scholarly communication system, the open-access movement, and increasing globalization are some reasons that prompted an examination of journal value rather than just impact. Using a single, specialized journal established in 1960, about education for the Information professions, the author discusses the fall from citation grace of the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS) in terms of impact factor and declining subscriptions. Journal evaluation studies in Library and Information Science based on subjective ratings are used to show the high rank of JELIS during the same period (1984-2004) and explain why impact factors and perceptual ratings either singly or jointly are inadequate measures for understanding the value of specialized, scholarly journals such as JELIS. This case study was also a search for bibliometric measures of journal value. Three measures, namely journal attraction power, author associativity, and journal consumption power, were selected; two of them were redefined as journal measures of affinity (the proportion of foreign authors), associativity (the amount of collaboration), and calculated as objective indicators of journal value. The affinity and associativity for JELIS calculated for 1984, 1994, 2004, and consumption calculated for 1985 and 1994 show a holding pattern; however, they also reveal interesting dimensions for future study. Journal value is multidimensional and citations do not capture all the facets; costs, benefits, and measures for informative and scientific value must be distinguished and developed in a fuller model of journal value.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=3329,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a