Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017743612 = product of:
  0.053230833 = sum of:
    0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053230833 = score(doc=3688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to establish an upper bound on finding answers to health-related questions in MedlinePlus and other online resources. Seven reference librarians tested a set of protocols to determine whether it was possible to use the types and foci of the questions extracted from customer requests submitted to the National Library of Medicine to find authoritative answers to these questions. Librarians tested the protocols manually to determine if the process was sufficiently robust and accurate to later automate. Results indicated that the extracted terms provide enough information to find authoritative answers for about 60% of questions and that certain question types are more likely to result in authoritative answers than others. The question corpus and analysis performed for this project will inform automatic question answering systems, and could lead to suggestions for new content to include in MedlinePlus. This approach can serve as an example to researchers interested in methods of evaluating question answering tools and the contents of online databases.

0.012546628 = product of:
  0.037639882 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=5471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 5471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5471)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the "Cited Reference Search" in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

0.0069279084 = product of:
  0.020783724 = sum of:
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

0.0069279084 = product of:
  0.020783724 = sum of:
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.0069279084 = product of:
  0.020783724 = sum of:
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 4670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=4670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Roles provide a key coordination mechanism in peer-production. Whereas one stream in the literature has focused on the structural responsibilities associated with roles, another has stressed the emergent nature of work. To date, these streams have proceeded largely in parallel. In seeking to enhance our understanding of the tension between structure and agency in peer-production, we investigated the interplay between structural and emergent roles. Our study explored the breadth of structural roles in Wikipedia (English version) and their linkage to various forms of activities. Our analyses show that despite the latitude in selecting their mode of participation, participants' structural and emergent roles are tightly coupled. Our discussion highlights that: (a) participants often stay close to the "production ground floor" despite the assignment into structural roles; and (b) there are typical modifications in activity patterns associated with role-assignment, namely: functional specialization, multispecialization, defunctionalization, changes in communication patterns, management of identity, and role definition. We contribute to theory of coordination and roles, as well as provide some practical implications.

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 5093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=5093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.1, S.14-36