Search (51 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Tenopir, C."
  1. Tenopir, C.: Will online vendors survive? (1998) 0.01 
    0.014021526 = product of:
  0.056086104 = sum of:
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 1815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=1815,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 1815, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1815)
    0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 1815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021862645 = score(doc=1815,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 1815, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1815)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Looks to the future of traditional online services, in light of the rising use of the WWW, which brings authors or publishers and readers directly together, without the intermediary role played by online vendors. Gives examples of changes in ownership of online services in the last half of 1997, and notes that the changes all suggest that online vendors must nkow their best markets and stick to them. Concludes that many online vendors will survive but in ne configurations and often with new owners
  2. Tenopir, C.: Online databases : taking online interaction for granted (1997) 0.01 
    0.013018559 = product of:
  0.052074235 = sum of:
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=1675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
    0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017850775 = score(doc=1675,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Considers some of the human factors in online interaction and Internet use. Discusses the following: users' need for help from libraries and librarians, given the difficulties people continue to have in accessing and using networked information; the challenge of user demands for speedy delivery of information and documents; the trend towards 'humanizing the net' through chat rooms and social agent interfaces (such as Microsoft's Bob); and the problems for libraries of users using the Internet for trivial or pornographic purposes
  3. Wilson, C.S.; Tenopir, C.: Local citation analysis, publishing and reading patterns : using multiple methods to evaluate faculty use of an academic library's research collection (2008) 0.01 
    0.01296362 = product of:
  0.05185448 = sum of:
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=1960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=1960,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1393-1408
  4. Tenopir, C.: Information metrics and user studies (2003) 0.01 
    0.010868087 = product of:
  0.04347235 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=686,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Three questions - what can be studied; how can studies be done; and what can be measured - drive research methods and help to identify information metrics for user studies. User studies can investigate user needs, search strategies, or preferences. Observing and asking, the two main methods for conducting user studies, yield quantitative and qualitative data through studying patterns of behavior and insights into motivation. ciber (Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, City University, London) is in a good position to continue supporting information user behavior studies that use a variety of methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative data and help establish consistent metrics.
  5. Tenopir, C.: Full text database retrieval performance (1985) 0.01 
    0.010436738 = product of:
  0.0834939 = sum of:
    0.0834939 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0834939 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.6684181 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  6. Tenopir, C.: Reference services from RLG (1995) 0.01 
    0.009459657 = product of:
  0.037838627 = sum of:
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=2612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2612)
    0.0223794 = product of:
      0.0447588 = sum of:
        0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0447588 = score(doc=2612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2612, 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=2612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Describes the variety of search services supporting library reference functions offered by the RLG in the USA. The best known of these is RLIN, the massive bibliographic database and related services originally developed for shared cataloguing. In the last few years RLG has added CitaDel, an online search system that provides access to indexing/abstracting databases; and Zephyr, a Z39.50 server that amkes the RLIN and CitaDel databases searchable through a library's online catalogue. RLG also offers document delivery connections, including Ariel and Internet based document delivery software, for a full complement of online reference support for academic and public libraries
    Date
    25.11.1995 19:22:01
  7. Tenopir, C.; Neufang, R.: ¬The impact of electronic reference on reference librarians (1992) 0.01 
    0.0088768 = product of:
  0.0355072 = sum of:
    0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 6371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017850775 = score(doc=6371,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 6371, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6371)
    0.017656423 = product of:
      0.035312846 = sum of:
        0.035312846 = weight(_text_:on in 6371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035312846 = score(doc=6371,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 6371, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6371)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
  8. Nicholas, D.; Huntington, P.; Jamali, H.R.; Rowlands, I.; Dobrowolski, T.; Tenopir, C.: Viewing and reading behaviour in a virtual environment : the full-text download and what can be read into it (2008) 0.01 
    0.008160047 = product of:
  0.03264019 = sum of:
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=1911,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1911, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1911)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=1911,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1911, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1911)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This article aims to focus on usage data in respect to full-text downloads of journal articles, which is considered an important usage (satisfaction) metric by librarians and publishers. The purpose is to evaluate the evidence regarding full-text viewing by pooling together data on the full-text viewing of tens of thousands of users studied as part of a number of investigations of e-journal databases conducted during the Virtual Scholar research programme. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the web logs of a number of electronic journal libraries including OhioLINK and ScienceDirect using Deep Log Analysis, which is a more sophisticated form of transactional log analysis. The frequency, characteristics and diversity of full-text viewing are examined. The article also features an investigation into the time spent online viewing full-text articles in order to get a clearer understanding of the significance of full-text viewing, especially in regard to reading. Findings - The main findings are that there is a great deal of variety amongst scholars in their full-text viewing habits and that a large proportion of views are very cursory in nature, although there is survey evidence to suggest that reading goes on offline. Originality/value - This is the first time that full-text viewing evidence is studied on such a large scale.
  9. Huntington, P.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Tenopir, C.: Article decay in the digital environment : an analysis of usage of OhioLINK by date of publication, employing deep log methods (2006) 0.01 
    0.007700827 = product of:
  0.030803308 = sum of:
    0.023000197 = weight(_text_:of in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023000197 = score(doc=214,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=214,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The article presents the early findings of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project, funded by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. OhioLINK, the original Big Deal, provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full-text journals for more than 600,000 people; for the purposes of the analysis, the raw logs were obtained from OhioLINK for the period June 2004 to December 2004. During this period approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. This article provides an analysis of the age of material that users consulted. From a methodological point of view OhioLINK offered an attractive platform to conduct age of publication usage studies because it is one of the oldest e-journal libraries and thus offered a relatively long archive and stable platform to conduct the studies. The project sought to determine whether the subject, the search approach adopted, and the type of journal item viewed (contents page, abstract, full-text article, etc.) was a factor in regard to the age of articles used.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1840-1851
  10. Tenopir, C.; Levine, K.; Allard, S.; Christian, L.; Volentine, R.; Boehm, R.; Nichols, F.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Herman, E.; Watkinson, A.: Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age : results of an international questionnaire (2016) 0.01 
    0.0070743347 = product of:
  0.028297339 = sum of:
    0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018933605 = score(doc=3113,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=3113,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2344-2361
  11. Tenopir, C.: Front end software proliferates (1996) 0.01 
    0.006986051 = product of:
  0.027944203 = sum of:
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=5133,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
    0.012484977 = product of:
      0.024969954 = sum of:
        0.024969954 = weight(_text_:on in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024969954 = score(doc=5133,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Discusses the advent of software packages (termed front end packages) which are installed on PCs or Macintosh machines and provide the user with an interface to online databases. The packages involved usually provide graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and are dedicated to particular online systems. Focuses on KR ProBase which was introduced by Knight-Ridder in 1995 for information specialists to search DIALOG and DataStar (though not yet with a single interface). Describes the features of this product. Concludes with a brief discussion of the alternatives to host specific software packagaes, Z39.50 and Web browsers such as Netscape
  12. Tenopir, C.; Hover, K.: When is the same database not the same : database differences among systems (1993) 0.01 
    0.0069783293 = product of:
  0.027913317 = sum of:
    0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 6286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012622404 = score(doc=6286,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 6286, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6286)
    0.015290912 = product of:
      0.030581824 = sum of:
        0.030581824 = weight(_text_:on in 6286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030581824 = score(doc=6286,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 6286, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Academic and special research libraries in the US and Canada access on average 7,4 online systems. This probably doubles or triples when including CD-ROMs and locally loaded databases. Examines the many ways in which online versions of databases can vary on different systems. Discusses the differences of updating, dates covered, price, subfile structure, field subdivisions, content or inclusion, support features and system search features. Provides statistics on these differences
  13. Tenopir, C.: Electronic publishing : research issues for academic librarians and users (2003) 0.01 
    0.0064401785 = product of:
  0.025760714 = sum of:
    0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016396983 = score(doc=35,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Increased reliance on electronic resources requires examination of the roles of librarians in several key ways. This paper addresses the need for further research into three important areas of electronic publishing. How is the change to digital information sources affecting the scholarly work of college and university students? Previous research shows that students rely on Web and online resources and ask for less help from librarians. We do not know, however, how these changes will affect the learning and scholarly work of college and university students. Research is also needed to determine how the differences between separate article and full journal databases affect the way research is done. What are the implications for scholarship of decisions being made about what publishers publish and what librarians purchase? Finally, are librarians--as intermediaries to the search process--still necessary in a digital age? Online systems are designed to be used independently but that may not always yield the best results.
  14. Tenopir, C.: Moving to the information village (1996) 0.01 
    0.0062969346 = product of:
  0.025187738 = sum of:
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=4944,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 4944, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4944)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=4944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Discusses the familiar problem of users are now confronted with the needs to impose order on myriad sources of information and to present them in an integrated way to users. Describes an attempt to provide such integration in the engineering field, Engineering Information Village, or Ei Village, produced by Engineering Information Inc. It resembles a WWW site, and integrates a traditional online abstracting and indexing service with access to WWW sites in the engineering field, contacts to engineering consultants, and access to other sources of interest to engineers. Explains how the metaphor of the village is carried though in the service and stresses the vetting process which seeks to guarantee that sources provided are authoritative. Also details the pricing of the service
  15. Nahl-Jakobovits, D.; Tenopir, C.: Databases online and on CD-ROM : how they differ, let us count the ways (1992) 0.01 
    0.006071859 = product of:
  0.024287436 = sum of:
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 4851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=4851,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4851, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4851)
    0.008828212 = product of:
      0.017656423 = sum of:
        0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 4851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017656423 = score(doc=4851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The study investigated the factors of response time, coverage, content and cost in CD-ROM and online versions of 2 popular databases: SilverPlatter Information Ins.'s and DIALOG's version of Psychological Abstracts (PsycINFO and PsycLIT) and Sociological Abstracts (Sociofile and Sociological Abstracts). Results confirm that, though the databases may be similar, significant differences do exist. Specifically, online searching gives a more consistent or predictable response time and yields greater currency, consistency and coverage
  16. Tenopir, C.; Jascó, P.: Quality of abstracts (1993) 0.01 
    0.006071859 = product of:
  0.024287436 = sum of:
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=5026,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
    0.008828212 = product of:
      0.017656423 = sum of:
        0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017656423 = score(doc=5026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Abstracts enable users to judge the relevance of articles, provide a summary and may be a substitute for the original document. Defines abstracts and considers who they are written be according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other sources. Distinguishes between indicative and informative abstracts. Informative abstracts are preferred by ANSI and ERIC. Discusses the content and procedures for abstracting, writing style, tests of quality and readability and informativeness. Presents statistics analyzing abstracts from 3 general interest databases and on abstract length and type
  17. Douglass, K.; Allard, S.; Tenopir, C.; Wu, L.W.; Frame, M.: Managing scientific data as public assets : data sharing practices and policies among full-time government employees (2014) 0.01 
    0.005323909 = product of:
  0.021295637 = sum of:
    0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015778005 = score(doc=1195,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This paper examines how scientists working in government agencies in the U.S. are reacting to the "ethos of sharing" government-generated data. For scientists to leverage the value of existing government data sets, critical data sets must be identified and made as widely available as possible. However, government data sets can only be leveraged when policy makers first assess the value of data, in much the same way they decide the value of grants for research outside government. We argue that legislators should also remove structural barriers to interoperability by funding technical infrastructure according to issue clusters rather than administrative programs. As developers attempt to make government data more accessible through portals, they should consider a range of other nontechnical constraints attached to the data. We find that agencies react to the large number of constraints by mostly posting their data on their own websites only rather than in data portals that can facilitate sharing. Despite the nontechnical constraints, we find that scientists working in government agencies exercise some autonomy in data decisions, such as data documentation, which determine whether or not the data can be widely shared. Fortunately, scientists indicate a willingness to share the data they collect or maintain. However, we argue further that a complete measure of access should also consider the normative decisions to collect (or not) particular data.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.251-262
  18. Tenopir, C.; Cahn, P.: TARGET & FREESTYLE : DIALOG and Mead join the relevance ranks (1994) 0.01 
    0.005218369 = product of:
  0.04174695 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.446-456.
  19. Tenopir, C.: Common end user errors (1997) 0.00 
    0.0044384 = product of:
  0.0177536 = sum of:
    0.008925388 = weight(_text_:of in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008925388 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
    0.008828212 = product of:
      0.017656423 = sum of:
        0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017656423 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Observes that whether in academic, special, or public libraries or on commercial online systems, CD-ROM, the online catalogue, or the Internet, certain end user errors crop up repeatedly. Details the main errors, which include input errors, errors arising from confusion in the face of different interfaces and screen designs, Boolean logic errors, term errors, conceptual errors, and errors due to the fact that users do not read instructions. Concludes that systems must solve the trivial errors automatically, but user instruction librarians must help solve the more complex problems
  20. Tenopir, C.: Ethics for online educators (1992) 0.00 
    0.003118402 = product of:
  0.024947217 = sum of:
    0.024947217 = weight(_text_:of in 7334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024947217 = score(doc=7334,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 7334, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7334)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The only monitoring of educators is performed by their internal sense of right and wrong. Following the aggred terms of system contracts, selecting the most appropriate systems for students, keeping up to date with system features, and instilling ethical behaviour in students are at the core of ethics for online educators
    Source
    Journal of information ethics. 1(1992), S.32-40

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 50
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes