Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022906825 = product of:
  0.04581365 = sum of:
    0.02561827 = weight(_text_:information in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02561827 = score(doc=1135,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.30666938 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
    0.020195378 = product of:
      0.040390756 = sum of:
        0.040390756 = weight(_text_:technology in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040390756 = score(doc=1135,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2849816 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this study, we attempt to evaluate the performance of the World Wide Web as an information resource in the domain of international travel. The theoretical framework underpinning our approach recognizes the contribution of models of information seeking behavior and of information systems in explaining World Wide Web usage as an information resource. Specifically, a model integrating the construct of uncertainty in information seeking and the task-technology fit model is presented. To test the integrated model, 217 travelers participated in a questionnaire-based empirical study. Our results confirm that richer (or enhanced) models are required to evaluate the broad context of World Wide Web (the Web) usage as an information resource. Use of the Web for travel tasks, for uncertainty reduction, as an information resource, and for mediation all have a significant impact an users' perception of performance, explaining 46% of the variance. Additionally, our study contributes to the testing and validation of metrics for use of the Web as an information resource in a specific domain.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.8, S.731-742

0.01383271 = product of:
  0.02766542 = sum of:
    0.011341691 = weight(_text_:information in 3680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011341691 = score(doc=3680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3680)
    0.016323728 = product of:
      0.032647457 = sum of:
        0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 3680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032647457 = score(doc=3680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 3680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.9, S.1004-1007

0.012295332 = product of:
  0.024590664 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
    0.016489455 = product of:
      0.03297891 = sum of:
        0.03297891 = weight(_text_:technology in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03297891 = score(doc=2846,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1083-1096

0.0098805055 = product of:
  0.019761011 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1242-1254

0.0098805055 = product of:
  0.019761011 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1091-1103

0.0098805055 = product of:
  0.019761011 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1393-1408

0.008966395 = product of:
  0.03586558 = sum of:
    0.03586558 = weight(_text_:information in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03586558 = score(doc=3816,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.42933714 = fieldWeight in 3816, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3816)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information scattering is an often observed phenomenon related to information collections where there are a few sources that have many items of relevant information about a topic, while most sources have only a few. This entry discusses the original discovery of the phenomenon, the types of information scattering observed across many different information collections, methods that have been used to analyze the phenomenon, explanations for why and how information scattering occurs, and how these results have informed the design of systems and search strategies. The entry concludes with future challenges related to building computational models to more precisely describe the process of information scatter, and algorithms which help users to gather highly scattered information.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.005434456 = product of:
  0.021737823 = sum of:
    0.021737823 = weight(_text_:information in 814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021737823 = score(doc=814,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 814, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=814)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Various mathematical tools and theories have found application in Library and Information Science (LIS). One of these is Fuzzy Set Theory (FST). FST is a generalization of classical Set Theory, designed to better model situations where membership of a set is not discrete but is "fuzzy." The theory dates from 1965, when Lotfi Zadeh published his seminal paper on the topic. As well as mathematical developments and extensions of the theory itself, there have been many applications of FST to such diverse areas as medical diagnoses and washing machines. The theory has also found application in a number of aspects of LIS. Information Retrieval (IR) is one area where FST can prove useful; this paper reviews IR applications of FST. Another major area of Information Science in which FST has found application is Informetrics; these studies are also reviewed. A few examples of the use of this theory in non-LIS domains are also examined.

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft "Current theory in library and information science"

0.0020253018 = product of:
  0.008101207 = sum of:
    0.008101207 = weight(_text_:information in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008101207 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.4, S.1503-1516