Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010225987 = product of:
  0.04090395 = sum of:
    0.04090395 = product of:
      0.0818079 = sum of:
        0.0818079 = weight(_text_:project in 1865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0818079 = score(doc=1865,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24808002 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 1865, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Little research has compared youngsters' use of CD-ROM and the Internet for information-seeking purposes. Nevertheless, the area has recently been addressed within a largely qualitative project more generally devoted to young people's information universes. Home access to the Internet was seen to be more limited than that to CD-ROM, although the former was consulted to tackle needs of a greater number of types. The strategies employed to exploit each form of information resource were essentially similar. No attempts were reported to check the credibility of any information retrieved from electronic sources. The Internet was, however, used more frequently beyond the informants' own homes than was CD-ROM. There was also greater employment of the Internet by adults acting an the youngsters' behalf. As Internet use for school purposes rose in accordance with age, that of CD-ROM declined. When youngsters themselves compared the two resources as information-seeking tools, CD-ROM software was criticized for its lack of detailed material and the Internet for the problems in locating what was desired. Project findings have implications in a range of areas, including the marketing of CD-ROM packages, research and development and practices within schools.

0.008677037 = product of:
  0.03470815 = sum of:
    0.03470815 = product of:
      0.0694163 = sum of:
        0.0694163 = weight(_text_:project in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0694163 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24808002 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

To clarify the subject of a project and indicate its limits, investigators must define for readers their work's key concepts. In most information behaviour research, definition of "information" itself is critical, although it may be difficult to do this immediately, as the researcher may be initially unsure of the nature of the phenomenon of interest. A definition may be evolved retrospectively and informed by data collected. In assembling a definition, the investigator may consider whether to draw a distinction between "knowledge" and "information", whether information is believed to be of the purely "objective" kind and the purposes for which information is required. A decision also needs to be made on whether the researcher's construct of "information" should be imposed on study participants. Whatever the approaches taken, the definition must be at least partially grounded in widely held assumptions and not inspired solely by the need to control the work's scope.

0.005611767 = product of:
  0.022447068 = sum of:
    0.022447068 = weight(_text_:library in 2838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022447068 = score(doc=2838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2838)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library review. 59(2010) no.8, S.585-595

0.005611767 = product of:
  0.022447068 = sum of:
    0.022447068 = weight(_text_:library in 2967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022447068 = score(doc=2967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2967)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library review. 58(2009) no.2, S.109-115

0.005611767 = product of:
  0.022447068 = sum of:
    0.022447068 = weight(_text_:library in 2970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022447068 = score(doc=2970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2970)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library review. 58(2009) no.5, S.353-361

0.005611767 = product of:
  0.022447068 = sum of:
    0.022447068 = weight(_text_:library in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022447068 = score(doc=399,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library review. 61(2012) no.2, S.92-109