Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009444252 = product of:
  0.04722126 = sum of:
    0.04722126 = product of:
      0.09444252 = sum of:
        0.09444252 = weight(_text_:data in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09444252 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.662865 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Much of the recent research on digital data repositories has focused on assessing either the trustworthiness of the repository or quantifying the frequency of data reuse. Satisfaction with the data reuse experience, however, has not been widely studied. Drawing from the information systems and information science literature, we developed a model to examine the relationship between data quality and data reusers' satisfaction. Based on a survey of 1,480 journal article authors who cited Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) data in published papers from 2008-2012, we found several data quality attributes-completeness, accessibility, ease of operation, and credibility-had significant positive associations with data reusers' satisfaction. There was also a significant positive relationship between documentation quality and data reusers' satisfaction.

0.0093121575 = product of:
  0.046560787 = sum of:
    0.046560787 = product of:
      0.09312157 = sum of:
        0.09312157 = weight(_text_:data in 5469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09312157 = score(doc=5469,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.65359366 = fieldWeight in 5469, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5469)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose Taking the researchers' perspective, the purpose of this paper is to examine the types of context information needed to preserve data's meaning in ways that support data reuse. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a qualitative study of 105 researchers from three disciplinary communities: quantitative social science, archaeology and zoology. The study focused on researchers' most recent data reuse experience, particularly what they needed when deciding whether to reuse data. Findings Findings show that researchers mentioned 12 types of context information across three broad categories: data production information (data collection, specimen and artifact, data producer, data analysis, missing data, and research objectives); repository information (provenance, reputation and history, curation and digitization); and data reuse information (prior reuse, advice on reuse and terms of use). Originality/value This paper extends digital curation conversations to include the preservation of context as well as content to facilitate data reuse. When compared to prior research, findings show that there is some generalizability with respect to the types of context needed across different disciplines and data sharing and reuse environments. It also introduces several new context types. Relying on the perspective of researchers offers a more nuanced view that shows the importance of the different context types for each discipline and the ways disciplinary members thought about them. Both data producers and curators can benefit from knowing what to capture and manage during data collection and deposit into a repository.

0.0024887787 = product of:
  0.012443894 = sum of:
    0.012443894 = product of:
      0.024887787 = sum of:
        0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024887787 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Prior studies have shown high-level differences in people's perception and use of various information formats. However, the lack of a coherent and theoretically informed framework of elements of format has inhibited a nuanced understanding of the role that formats play in information behavior. This paper draws on theories from the field of rhetoric and composition to ground the study of information format in a social constructivist perspective that foregrounds action in context. Specifically, rhetorical genre theory is discussed in detail and the limitations of previous information behavior studies using rhetorical genre theory are explored. One of the main problems of earlier studies is confusing genres and their containers. This paper introduces and defines the concept of containers as typified ways of collecting and presenting texts of certain genres for publication. Building on rhetorical genre theory, the paper offers a theoretical exploration of the role that containers play in the formal and/or public sharing of information within discourse communities. An illustrative example of the concepts applied to data from an Institute of Museum and Library Services funded study is provided.