Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Sbaffi, L."
  1. Sbaffi, L.; Zhao, C.: Modeling the online health information seeking process : information channel selection among university students (2020) 0.02
    0.017264182 = product of:
      0.06905673 = sum of:
        0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 5618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06905673 = score(doc=5618,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 5618, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5618)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This study investigates the influence of individual and information characteristics on university students' information channel selection (that is, search engines, social question & answer sites, online health websites, and social networking sites) of online health information (OHI) for three different types of search tasks (factual, exploratory, and personal experience). Quantitative data were collected via an online questionnaire distributed to students on various postgraduate programs at a large UK university. In total, 291 responses were processed for descriptive statistics, Principal Component Analysis, and Poisson regression. Search engines are the most frequently used among the four channels of information discussed in this study. Credibility, ease of use, style, usefulness, and recommendation are the key factors influencing users' judgments of information characteristics (explaining over 62% of the variance). Poisson regression indicated that individuals' channel experience, age, student status, health status, and triangulation (comparing sources) as well as style, credibility, usefulness, and recommendation are substantive predictors for channel selection of OHI.
  2. Rowley, J.; Johnson, F.; Sbaffi, L.; Frass, W.; Devine, E.: Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals (2017) 0.01
    0.010173016 = product of:
      0.040692065 = sum of:
        0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040692065 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.