Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019982103 = product of:
  0.039964207 = sum of:
    0.039964207 = sum of:
      0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006318258 = score(doc=2766,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
      0.033645947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033645947 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2766, 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=2766)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study assesses the current state of responsibilities and skill sets required of cataloging professionals. It identifies emerging roles and competencies focusing on the digital environment and relates these to the established knowledge of traditional cataloging standards and practices. We conducted a content analysis of 349 job descriptions advertised in AutoCAT in 2005-2006. Multivariate techniques of cluster and multidimensional-scaling analyses were applied to the data. Analysis of job titles, required and preferred qualifications/skills, and responsibilities lends perspective to the roles that cataloging professionals play in the digital environment. Technological advances increasingly demand knowledge and skills related to electronic resource management, metadata creation, and computer and Web applications. Emerging knowledge and skill sets are increasingly being integrated into the core technical aspects of cataloging such as bibliographic and authority control and integrated library-system management. Management of cataloging functions is also in high demand. The results of the study provide insight on current and future curriculum design of library and information-science programs.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:20:24

Type

a

0.0020392092 = product of:
  0.0040784185 = sum of:
    0.0040784185 = product of:
      0.008156837 = sum of:
        0.008156837 = weight(_text_:a in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008156837 = score(doc=5219,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. To uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (a) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (b) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.

Type

a

0.0018615347 = product of:
  0.0037230693 = sum of:
    0.0037230693 = product of:
      0.0074461387 = sum of:
        0.0074461387 = weight(_text_:a in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074461387 = score(doc=520,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews a large number of research achievements relevant to user privacy protection in an untrusted network environment, and then analyzes and evaluates their application limitations in personalized information retrieval, to establish the conditional constraints that an effective approach for user preference privacy protection in personalized information retrieval should meet, thus providing a basic reference for the solution of this problem. First, based on the basic framework of a personalized information retrieval platform, we establish a complete set of constraints for user preference privacy protection in terms of security, usability, efficiency, and accuracy. Then, we comprehensively review the technical features for all kinds of popular methods for user privacy protection, and analyze their application limitations in personalized information retrieval, according to the constraints of preference privacy protection. The results show that personalized information retrieval has higher requirements for users' privacy protection, i.e., it is required to comprehensively improve the security of users' preference privacy on the untrusted server-side, under the precondition of not changing the platform, algorithm, efficiency, and accuracy of personalized information retrieval. However, all kinds of existing privacy methods still cannot meet the above requirements. This paper is an important study attempt to the problem of user preference privacy protection of personalized information retrieval, which can provide a basic reference and direction for the further study of the problem.

Type

a

0.0015795645 = product of:
  0.003159129 = sum of:
    0.003159129 = product of:
      0.006318258 = sum of:
        0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006318258 = score(doc=3543,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the data collected from a nationwide study drawn from the community of cataloging and metadata professionals, this study aims to assess the current state of locally added metadata elements used across digital repositories. Addition of locally created metadata elements is a fairly common practice adopted by over one-third of the survey participants. Homegrown elements for descriptive metadata comprising local notes and description, local personal and place names, and local subjects are added most frequently, followed by administrative, technical, and preservation metadata. The major reason for extending metadata is to accommodate the perceived needs of local collections and their users. Yet, there are currently few open mechanisms for finding and sharing documented information about such localized metadata practices.

Type

a

0.0010747575 = product of:
  0.002149515 = sum of:
    0.002149515 = product of:
      0.00429903 = sum of:
        0.00429903 = weight(_text_:a in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00429903 = score(doc=5963,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.

Type

a