Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023258494 = product of:
  0.04651699 = sum of:
    0.04651699 = sum of:
      0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009076704 = score(doc=2932,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2932, 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=2932)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2932,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2932, 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=2932)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The increasing popularity of the Internet and social media is creating new and unique challenges for parents and adolescents regarding the boundaries between parental control and adolescent autonomy in virtual spaces. Drawing on developmental psychology and Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory, we conduct a qualitative study to examine the challenge between parental concern for adolescent online safety and teens' desire to independently regulate their own online experiences. Analysis of 12 parent-teen pairs revealed five distinct challenges: (a) increased teen autonomy and decreased parental control resulting from teens' direct and unmediated access to virtual spaces, (b) the shift in power to teens who are often more knowledgeable about online spaces and technology, (c) the use of physical boundaries by parents as a means to control virtual spaces, (d) an increase in indirect boundary control strategies such as covert monitoring, and (e) the blurring of lines in virtual spaces between parents' teens and teens' friends.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:05:22

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=961,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 961, 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=961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The information schools, also referred to as iField schools, are leaders in data science education. This study aims to develop a data science graduate curriculum model from an information science perspective to support iField schools in developing data science graduate education. In June 2020, information about 96 data science graduate programs from iField schools worldwide was collected and analyzed using a mixed research method based on inductive content analysis. A wide range of data science competencies and skills development and 12 knowledge topics covered by the curriculum were obtained. The humanistic model is further taken as the theoretical and methodological basis for course model construction, and 12 course knowledge topics are reconstructed into 4 course modules, including (a) data-driven methods and techniques; (b) domain knowledge; (c) legal, moral, and ethical aspects of data; and (d) shaping and developing personal traits, and human-centered data science graduate curriculum model is formed. At the end of the study, the wide application prospect of this model is discussed.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=663,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=2165,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2165, 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=2165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of social network sites offers many potential social benefits, but also raises privacy concerns and challenges for users. The trade-off users have to make between using sites such as Facebook to connect with their friends versus protecting their personal privacy is not well understood. Furthermore, very little behavioral research has focused on how personal privacy concerns are related to information disclosures made by one's friends. Our survey study of 116 Facebook users shows that engaging with friends through tagging activity and third-party application use is associated with higher levels of personal Facebook usage and a stronger emotional attachment to Facebook. However, users who have high levels of personal privacy concern and perceive a lack of effectiveness in Facebook's privacy policies tend to engage less frequently in tagging and app activities with friends, respectively. Our model and results explore illustrate the complexity of the trade-off between privacy concerns, engaging with friends through tagging and apps, and Facebook usage.

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=1788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a