Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=1865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 1865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1865)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.011334131 = product of:
  0.03400239 = sum of:
    0.03400239 = product of:
      0.06800478 = sum of:
        0.06800478 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06800478 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.011301385 = product of:
  0.033904154 = sum of:
    0.033904154 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033904154 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.17277734 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

'I wish that I had been able to obtain such a guide when I started dealing with enquiries' - "Managing Information". 'By the time I got to it 3 staff had noticed it on the desk and written a note saying really good and can we have a copy' - "BBOB News". 'This is certainly a comforting and very useful guide for the information worker, particularly inexperienced or unqualified, staffing a general enquiry desk' - "New Library World". There is a queue, the phone is ringing, the photocopier has jammed and your enquirer is waiting for a response. You are stressed and you can feel the panic rising. Where do you go to find the information you need to answer the question promptly and accurately?Answering queries from users is one of the most important services undertaken by library and information staff. Yet it is also one of the most difficult, least understood subjects. There are still very few materials available to help frontline staff - often paraprofessional - develop their reader enquiry skills. This award-winning sourcebook is an essential guide to where to look to find the answers quickly. It is designed as a first point of reference for library and information practitioners, to be depended upon if they are unfamiliar with the subject of an enquiry - or wish to find out more. It is arranged in an easily searchable, fully cross-referenced A-Z list of around 150 of the subject areas most frequently handled at enquiry desks.Each subject entry lists the most important information sources and where to locate them, including printed and electronic sources, relevant websites and useful contacts for referral purposes. The authors use their extensive experience in reference work to offer useful tips, warn of potential pitfalls, and spotlight typical queries and how to tackle them. This new edition has been brought right up-to-date with all sources checked for currency and many new ones added. The searchability is enhanced by a comprehensive index to make those essential sources even easier to find - saving you valuable minutes! Offering quick and easy pointers to a multitude of information sources, this is an invaluable reference deskbook for all library and information staff in need of a speedy answer, in reference libraries, subject departments and other information units.

0.009888712 = product of:
  0.029666137 = sum of:
    0.029666137 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029666137 = score(doc=1170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.15118018 = fieldWeight in 1170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1170)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE) seeks to become the world's largest and most authoritative electronic source of information about the environments of Earth and their interactions with society. It is a free, fully searchable collection of articles written by scholars, professionals, educators, and experts who collaborate and review each other's work with oversight from an International Advisory Board. The articles are written in non-technical language and are available for free, with no commercial advertising to students, educators, scholars, professionals, decision makers, as well as to the general public. The scope of the Encyclopedia of Earth is the environment of the Earth broadly defined, with particular emphasis on the interaction between society and the natural spheres of the Earth. It will be built on the integrated knowledge from economists to philosophers to span all aspects of the environment. The Encyclopedia is being built bottom-up through the use of a wiki-software that allows users to freely create and edit content. New collaborations, ideas, and entries dynamically evolve in this environment. In this way, the Encyclopedia is a constantly evolving, self-organizing, expert-reviewed, and up-to-date source of environmental information. The motivation behind the Encyclopedia of Earth is simple. Go to GoogleT and type in climate change, pesticides, nuclear power, sustainable development, or any other important environmental issue. Doing so returns millions of results, some fraction of which are authoritative. The remainder is of poor or unknown quality.

0.0090673035 = product of:
  0.02720191 = sum of:
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, 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=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.00793389 = product of:
  0.023801671 = sum of:
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:37:55

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4873, 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=4873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:42

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 1767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=1767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1767, 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=1767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2008 13:43:38

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 3011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=3011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3011, 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=3011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:05:56

0.0056506926 = product of:
  0.016952077 = sum of:
    0.016952077 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016952077 = score(doc=3993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.08638867 = fieldWeight in 3993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3993)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

The discussion of modes for digital reference world be incomplete without focusing an the technologies that support this activity. E-mail, Web forms, chat, instant messaging, and videoconferencing, as well as the call center based software, are now being adapted for use in libraries. The book discusses the technologies currently available and an the horizon to support digital reference services. While these sections of the book may not age well, they will provide us with a historical glimpse of the nascent development of such tools and how they were used at the beginning of the digital reference age. True to the emphasis an decision-making, the chapter an technology includes a list of functions that reference librarians world want in software to support digital reference. While no current applications have all of these features, this list provides librarians with some ideas concerning possible features that can be prioritized to aid in a selection process. Despite the emphasis an technology, Janes contextualizes this discussion with several significant issues relating to its implementation. These include everything from infrastructure, collaborative service standards, service design, user authentication, and user expectations. The sections an collaborative service models and service design are particularly interesting since they are both in their infancy. Readers wanting an answer or the "best" design of either institutional or collaborative digital reference service will be disappointed. However, raising these considerations is important and Janes points out how crucial these issues will be as online reference service matures. User authentication in the context of reference service is especially tricky since tensions can emerge between license agreements and the range of people who may or may not be covered by these contracts querying reference librarians. Finally, no discussion of digital reference is complete without a discussion of the possibility of 24/7 reference service and the ensuing user expectations. While Janes has no answers to the dilemmas these raise, he does alert libraries providing digital reference services to some of the realities. One is that libraries will get a broader range of questions, which could impact staff time, collection development to support these questions, and necessitate either a confirmation of priorities or a reprioritization of activities. Another reality is that the users of digital reference services may never have partaken of their services before. In fact, for libraries funded to serve a particular constituency (public libraries, academic libraries) this influx of users raises questions about levels of service, funding, and policy. Finally, in keeping with the underlying theme of values that pervades the book, Janes points out the deeper issues related to technology such as increasing ability to track users an the web. While he realizes that anonymous information about those who ask reference questions world provide reference librarians with a great deal of information to hone services and better serve constituencies, he is well aware of the dangers involved in collectiog patron information in electronic form.

0.0045336518 = product of:
  0.013600955 = sum of:
    0.013600955 = product of:
      0.02720191 = sum of:
        0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02720191 = score(doc=2182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: c't 2002, H.23, S.229 (T.J. Schult): "Mac-Anwender hatten bisher keine große Auswahl bei Multimedia-Enzyklopädien: entweder ein grottenschlechtes Kosmos Kompaktwissen, das dieses Jahr letztmalig erscheinen soll und sich dabei als Systhema Universallexikon tarnt. Oder ein Brockhaus in Text und Bild mit exzellenten Texten, aber flauer Medienausstattung. Die von Acclaim in Deutschland vertriebenen Britannica-Enzyklopädien stellen eine ausgezeichnete Alternative für den des Englischen Kundigen dar. Während früher nur Einfach-Britannicas auf dem Mac liefen, gilt dies nun für alle drei Versionen Student, Deluxe und Ultimate Reference Suite. Die Suite enthält dabei nicht nur alle 75 000 Artikel der 32 Britannica-Bände, sondern auch die 15 000 der Student Encyclopaedia, eines eigenen Schülerlexikons, das durch sein einfaches Englisch gerade für Nicht-Muttersprachler als Einstieg taugt. Wer es noch elementarer haben möchte, klickt sich zur Britannica Elementary Encyclopaedia, welche unter der gleichen Oberfläche wie die anderen Werke zugänglich ist. Schließlich umfasst die Suite einen Weltatlas sowie einsprachige Wörterbücher und Thesauri von Merriam-Webster in der Collegiate- und Student-Ausbaustufe mit allein 555 000 Definitionen, Synonymen und Antonymen. Wer viel in englischer Sprache recherchiert oder gar schreibt, leckt sich angesichts dieses Angebots (EUR 99,95) die Finger, zumal die Printausgabe gut 1600 Euro kostet. Die Texte sind einfach kolossal - allein das Inhaltsverzeichnis des Artikels Germany füllt sieben Bildschirmseiten. Schon die Inhalte aus den BritannicaBänden bieten mehr als doppelt so viel Text wie die rund tausend Euro kostende Brockhaus Enzyklopädie digital (c't 22/02, S. 38). Allein die 220 000 thematisch einsortierten Web-Links sind das Geld wert. Wer die 2,4 Gigabyte belegende Komplettinstallation wählt, muss sogar nie mehr die DVD (alternativ vier CD-ROMs) einlegen. Dieses Jahr muss sich niemand mehr mit dem Britannica-typischen Kuddelmuddel aus Lexikonartikeln und vielen, vielen Jahrbüchern herumschlagen - außer dem Basistext der drei Enzyklopädien sind 'nur' die zwei Jahrbücher 2001 und 2002 getrennt aufgeführt. Wer des Englischen mächtig ist, mag hier die gute Gelegenheit zum Kauf nutzen."

0.0045336518 = product of:
  0.013600955 = sum of:
    0.013600955 = product of:
      0.02720191 = sum of:
        0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 2010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02720191 = score(doc=2010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2010, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wikipedia (the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit) is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this article argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., Web sites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does. Somebody who reads Wikipedia is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom, says Mr. McHenry, Britannica's former editor. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all. The Economist (Vol. 379, April 22, 2006, pp. 14-15)

0.0028335326 = product of:
  0.008500597 = sum of:
    0.008500597 = product of:
      0.017001195 = sum of:
        0.017001195 = weight(_text_:22 in 3992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017001195 = score(doc=3992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2004 14:46:50