-
Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Song, S.: ¬The design and evaluation of a nudge-based interface to facilitate consumers' evaluation of online health information credibility (2023)
0.01
0.013725774 = product of:
0.04117732 = sum of:
0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026132854 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.044416238 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 993, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=993)
0.0150444675 = product of:
0.030088935 = sum of:
0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030088935 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044416238 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 993, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=993)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Evaluating the quality of online health information (OHI) is a major challenge facing consumers. We designed PageGraph, an interface that displays quality indicators and associated values for a webpage, based on credibility evaluation models, the nudge theory, and existing empirical research concerning professionals' and consumers' evaluation of OHI quality. A qualitative evaluation of the interface with 16 participants revealed that PageGraph rendered the information and presentation nudges as intended. It provided the participants with easier access to quality indicators, encouraged fresh angles to assess information credibility, provided an evaluation framework, and encouraged validation of initial judgments. We then conducted a quantitative evaluation of the interface involving 60 participants using a between-subject experimental design. The control group used a regular web browser and evaluated the credibility of 12 preselected webpages, whereas the experimental group evaluated the same webpages with the assistance of PageGraph. PageGraph did not significantly influence participants' evaluation results. The results may be attributed to the insufficiency of the saliency and structure of the nudges implemented and the webpage stimuli's lack of sensitivity to the intervention. Future directions for applying nudges to support OHI evaluation were discussed.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:18:34
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, D.; Hagen, L.; Song, I.-Y.; Mostafa, J.; Oh, S.; Anderson, T.; Shah, C.; Bishop, B.W.; Hopfgartner, F.; Eckert, K.; Federer, L.; Saltz, J.S.: Data science curriculum in the iField (2023)
0.01
0.009717524 = product of:
0.058305144 = sum of:
0.058305144 = product of:
0.11661029 = sum of:
0.11661029 = weight(_text_:programs in 964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11661029 = score(doc=964,freq=4.0), product of:
0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
0.044416238 = queryNorm
0.45288983 = fieldWeight in 964, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=964)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Many disciplines, including the broad Field of Information (iField), offer Data Science (DS) programs. There have been significant efforts exploring an individual discipline's identity and unique contributions to the broader DS education landscape. To advance DS education in the iField, the iSchool Data Science Curriculum Committee (iDSCC) was formed and charged with building and recommending a DS education framework for iSchools. This paper reports on the research process and findings of a series of studies to address important questions: What is the iField identity in the multidisciplinary DS education landscape? What is the status of DS education in iField schools? What knowledge and skills should be included in the core curriculum for iField DS education? What are the jobs available for DS graduates from the iField? What are the differences between graduate-level and undergraduate-level DS education? Answers to these questions will not only distinguish an iField approach to DS education but also define critical components of DS curriculum. The results will inform individual DS programs in the iField to develop curriculum to support undergraduate and graduate DS education in their local context.
-
Xu, H.; Bu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Y.; Meyer, E.; Salas, E.; Ding, Y.: Team power dynamics and team impact : new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power (2022)
0.01
0.007723937 = product of:
0.04634362 = sum of:
0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04634362 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
0.044416238 = queryNorm
0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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.
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.00
0.0025074114 = product of:
0.0150444675 = sum of:
0.0150444675 = product of:
0.030088935 = sum of:
0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030088935 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044416238 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
