Search (255 results, page 13 of 13)

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=4847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4847)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 31(1996), S.121-187

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 953, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=953)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information; communication; and library science. 3(1997) no.4, S.26-33

0.003358568 = product of:
  0.013434272 = sum of:
    0.013434272 = weight(_text_:information in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013434272 = score(doc=4286,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This chapter reviews visualization techniques that can be used to map the ever-growing domain structure of scientific disciplines and to support information retrieval and classification. In contrast to the comprehensive surveys conducted in traditional fashion by Howard White and Katherine McCain (1997, 1998), this survey not only reviews emerging techniques in interactive data analysis and information visualization, but also depicts the bibliographical structure of the field itself. The chapter starts by reviewing the history of knowledge domain visualization. We then present a general process flow for the visualization of knowledge domains and explain commonly used techniques. In order to visualize the domain reviewed by this chapter, we introduce a bibliographic data set of considerable size, which includes articles from the citation analysis, bibliometrics, semantics, and visualization literatures. Using tutorial style, we then apply various algorithms to demonstrate the visualization effectsl produced by different approaches and compare the results. The domain visualizations reveal the relationships within and between the four fields that together constitute the focus of this chapter. We conclude with a general discussion of research possibilities. Painting a "big picture" of scientific knowledge has long been desirable for a variety of reasons. Traditional approaches are brute forcescholars must sort through mountains of literature to perceive the outlines of their field. Obviously, this is time-consuming, difficult to replicate, and entails subjective judgments. The task is enormously complex. Sifting through recently published documents to find those that will later be recognized as important is labor intensive. Traditional approaches struggle to keep up with the pace of information growth. In multidisciplinary fields of study it is especially difficult to maintain an overview of literature dynamics. Painting the big picture of an everevolving scientific discipline is akin to the situation described in the widely known Indian legend about the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes, six blind men were trying to find out what an elephant looked like. They touched different parts of the elephant and quickly jumped to their conclusions. The one touching the body said it must be like a wall; the one touching the tail said it was like a snake; the one touching the legs said it was like a tree trunk, and so forth. But science does not stand still; the steady stream of new scientific literature creates a continuously changing structure. The resulting disappearance, fusion, and emergence of research areas add another twist to the tale-it is as if the elephant is running and dynamically changing its shape. Domain visualization, an emerging field of study, is in a similar situation. Relevant literature is spread across disciplines that have traditionally had few connections. Researchers examining the domain from a particular discipline cannot possibly have an adequate understanding of the whole. As noted by White and McCain (1997), the new generation of information scientists is technically driven in its efforts to visualize scientific disciplines. However, limited progress has been made in terms of connecting pioneers' theories and practices with the potentialities of today's enabling technologies. If the difference between past and present generations lies in the power of available technologies, what they have in common is the ultimate goal-to reveal the development of scientific knowledge.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.179-258

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=4279,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.81-138

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 4282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=4282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4282, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4282)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We know this Web world. We live in it, particularly those of us in developed countries. Even if we do not go online daily, we live with itour culture is imprinted with online activity and vocabulary: e-mailing colleagues, surfing the Web, posting Web pages, blogging, gender-bending in cyberspace, texting and instant messaging friends, engaging in ecommerce, entering an online chat room, or morphing in an online world. We use it-to conduct business, find information, talk with friends and colleagues. We know it is something separate, yet we incorporate it into our daily lives. We identify with it, bringing to it behaviors and expectations we hold for the world in general. We approach it as explorers and entrepreneurs, ready to move into unknown opportunities and territory; creators and engineers, eager to build new structures; utopians for whom "the world of the Web" represents the chance to start again and "get it right" this time; utilitarians, ready to get what we can out of the new structures; and dystopians, for whom this is just more evidence that there is no way to "get it right." The word "world" has many connotations. The Oxford English Dictionary (http://dictionary.oed.com) gives 27 definitions for the noun "world" including: - The sphere within which one's interests are bound up or one's activities find scope; (one's) sphere of action or thought; the "realm" within which one moves or lives. - A group or system of things or beings associated by common characteristics (denoted by a qualifying word or phrase), or considered as constituting a unity. - Human society considered in relation to its activities, difficulties, temptations, and the like; hence, contextually, the ways, practices, or customs of the people among whom one lives; the occupations and interests of society at large.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.311-346

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2291, 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=2291)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 32(1997), S.99-168

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 4396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=4396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4396, 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=4396)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 2010, June, S.58-66

0.0029731835 = product of:
  0.011892734 = sum of:
    0.011892734 = weight(_text_:information in 4280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011892734 = score(doc=4280,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 4280, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4280)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

What is an electronic record, how should it best be preserved and made available, and to what extent do traditional, paradigmatic archival precepts such as provenance, original order, and archival custody hold when managing it? Over more than four decades of work in the area of electronic records (formerly known as machine-readable records), theorists and researchers have offered answers to these questions-or at least devised approaches for trying to answer them. However, a set of fundamental questions about the nature of the record and the applicability of traditional archival theory still confronts researchers seeking to advance knowledge and development in this increasingly active, but contested, area of research. For example, which characteristics differentiate a record from other types of information objects (such as publications or raw research data)? Are these characteristics consistently present regardless of the medium of the record? Does the record always have to have a tangible form? How does the record manifest itself within different technological and procedural contexts, and in particular, how do we determine the parameters of electronic records created in relational, distributed, or dynamic environments that bear little resemblance an the surface to traditional paper-based environments? At the heart of electronic records research lies a dual concern with the nature of the record as a specific type of information object and the nature of legal and historical evidence in a digital world. Electronic records research is relevant to the agendas of many communities in addition to that of archivists. Its emphasis an accountability and an establishing trust in records, for example, addresses concerns that are central to both digital government and e-commerce. Research relating to electronic records is still relatively homogeneous in terms of scope, in that most major research initiatives have addressed various combinations of the following: theory building in terms of identifying the nature of the electronic record, developing alternative conceptual models, establishing the determinants of reliability and authenticity in active and preserved electronic records, identifying functional and metadata requirements for record keeping, developing and testing preservation

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.219-256

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 32(1997), S.231-267

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4272)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.591-632

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2037-2062

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5841, 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=5841)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose To provide a close, detailed analysis of the frequency, nature, and depth of visible use of Michel Foucault's works by library and information science/studies (LIS) scholars. Design/methodology/approach The study conducted extensive full-text searches in a large number of electronically available LIS journal databases to find citations of Foucault's works, then examined each cited article to evaluate the nature and depth of use. Findings Most uses of Foucault are brief or in passing. In-depth explorations of Foucault's works are comparatively rare and relatively little-used by other LIS scholars. Yet the relatively brief uses of Foucault encompass a wide array of different topics spread across a wide spectrum of LIS journal literature. Research limitations/implications The study was limited to articles from particular relatively prominent LIS journals. Results might vary if different journals or non-journal literature were studied. More sophisticated bibliometric techniques might reveal different relative performance among journals and might better test, confirm, or reject various patterns and relationships found here. Other research approaches, such as discourse analysis, social network analysis, or scholar interviews, might reveal patterns of use and influence not visible in this literature sample. Originality/value This intensive study of both quality and quantity of citations may challenge some existing assumptions regarding citation analysis, plus illuminating Foucault scholarship. It also indicates possible problems for future application of artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to similar depth-of-use studies.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 464, 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=464)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.204-224

0.0015019972 = product of:
  0.006007989 = sum of:
    0.006007989 = weight(_text_:information in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006007989 = score(doc=4270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.87-144