Search (1519 results, page 1 of 76)

0.16521555 = product of:
  0.4405748 = sum of:
    0.06293926 = product of:
      0.18881777 = sum of:
        0.18881777 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18881777 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18881777 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18881777 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.18881777 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18881777 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.07186526 = product of:
  0.14373052 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.022778753 = product of:
      0.045557506 = sum of:
        0.045557506 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045557506 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

0.07076382 = product of:
  0.14152764 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059839215 = score(doc=420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_f.pdf.

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.06794351 = product of:
  0.18118271 = sum of:
    0.08462543 = weight(_text_:case in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08462543 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.026845016 = product of:
      0.05369003 = sum of:
        0.05369003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05369003 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

Footnote

This article corrects: Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies in: JASIST 62(2011) no,8, S.1637-1644.

0.06434176 = product of:
  0.17157803 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.06901162 = weight(_text_:studies in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06901162 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43643627 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

0.059887715 = product of:
  0.11977543 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
    0.018982293 = product of:
      0.037964586 = sum of:
        0.037964586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037964586 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.

0.055892844 = product of:
  0.11178569 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=1435,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=1435,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
    0.048298076 = weight(_text_:studies in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048298076 = score(doc=1435,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30544177 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=1435,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1435, 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=1435)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Background: Faceted navigation (sometimes known as faceted search, faceted browsing, or guided navigation) is the solution applied to an increasingly diverse range of search and discovery applications in the second decade of XXI century. Faceted search is now the dominant interaction paradigm for most of the e-commerce sites and becomes an important solution for universal and specialized search engines for the content-heavy sites such as media publishers, libraries and even non-profits - to make their often broad range of content more findable. Faceted search interfaces are increasingly used to support complex and iterative information-seeking tasks such as exploratory search. These interfaces provide clickable categories in conjunction with search result lists so that searchers can narrow and browse the results without reformulating their queries. User studies demonstrate that faceted search provides more effective information-seeking support to users than best-first search. Faceted search interfaces are presented as an answer to the investigative nature, uncertainty and ambiguity in exploratory search tasks. Objectives: The interesting research questions are: What is the scale of faceted navigating in search and discovery application? Is faceted search intuitive information finding? How faceted search tools affect searcher behavior - the tactics searchers use when querying, looking at search results, and selecting them? What are the key benefits and weaknesses of faceted navigating for users? In what sense faceted navigation is the panacea for information overload? What faceted implementations are the most prominent? What are the most important findings in the field of faceted search for the development of knowledge organization and information science? Methods: To answer research questions listed above, multiple methods will be applied: the conceptual analysis (to clarify the concept of faceted navigation); selected aspects of information seeking and exploratory search will be subject to critical literature review; critical analysis of some user studies will be performed. Case studies of several search and discovery tools will be used to exemplify concrete solutions in them. Findings: The study explores faceted navigation and reveals the most actual solutions in modern search engines, discovery tools, library catalogs. It attempts to explain specific features of this method from the users' perspective, not information architects. It helps knowledge organization specialists to confront theory with users' practice and propose new efficient support for information environments.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.05543813 = product of:
  0.14783502 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 1133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=1133,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1133, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1133)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=1133,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1133, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1133)
    0.0552324 = product of:
      0.1104648 = sum of:
        0.1104648 = weight(_text_:area in 1133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1104648 = score(doc=1133,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.5657455 = fieldWeight in 1133, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

A new method for visualizing the relatedness of scientific areas has been developed that is based on measuring the overlap of researchers between areas. It is found that closely related areas have a high propensity to share a larger number of common authors. A method for comparing areas of vastly different sizes and to handle name homonymy is constructed, allowing for the robust deployment of this method on real data sets. A statistical analysis of the probability distributions of the common author overlap that accounts for noise is carried out along with the production of network maps with weighted links proportional to the overlap strength. This is demonstrated on 2 case studies, complexity science and neutrino physics, where the level of relatedness of areas within each area is expected to vary greatly. It is found that the results returned by this method closely match the intuitive expectation that the broad, multidisciplinary area of complexity science possesses areas that are weakly related to each other, whereas the much narrower area of neutrino physics shows very strongly related areas.

0.051927313 = product of:
  0.13847284 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
    0.07999241 = sum of:
      0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0531474 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
      0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026845016 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5495, 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=5495)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to uncover similarities and differences among emphasized information literacy (IL) skills for the disciplines of political- and social sciences, economics, educational sciences, law sciences, mathematics, life sciences, history and German studies, based on an analysis of IL teaching materials. Design/methodology/approach Eight issues of the German language publication series Erfolgreich recherchieren (Succesful Research Strategies) are compared by using a structuring content analysis. The category system is based on the IL standards and performance indicators of the Association of College and Research Libraries (2000), extended with additional categories. Findings The results, first, suggest that the biggest similarities and differences among the disciplines are found concerning the determination of the nature and extent of the needed information, especially in the area of identifying potential sources of information. Second, some of the disciplines focus more on international sources, whereas others focus on country- and language-specific sources. Third, the criteria to define the appropriate retrieval system differ among the various disciplines. Fourth, approaches to narrow the search results differ among the various disciplines. Fifth, the critical evaluation of sources is addressed in all disciplines but relates to different contexts. Research limitations/implications This approach only addresses one book per discipline out of a German language book series. Further research is needed. Originality/value This paper is unique in its approach and one of few papers on disciplinary differences in IL perception.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.051923946 = product of:
  0.13846385 = sum of:
    0.08462543 = weight(_text_:case in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08462543 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.018982293 = product of:
      0.037964586 = sum of:
        0.037964586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037964586 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.

0.048653036 = product of:
  0.12974143 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 1449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=1449,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 1449, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1449)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=1449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1449)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 1449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=1449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1449, 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=1449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

In most search systems, mapping queries with documents employs techniques such as vector space model, naïve Bayes, Bayesian theorem etc. to classify resulting documents. In this research studies, we are proposing the use of the concept of basic categories to representing the user's level of knowledge based on the concepts he employed during his search activities, so that the system could propose adapted results based on the observed user's level of knowledge. Our hypothesis is that this approach will enhance the decision support system for solving decisional problems in which information retrieval constitutes the backbone technical problem.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Theme

Case Based Reasoning

0.046684146 = product of:
  0.12449105 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
    0.031888437 = product of:
      0.06377687 = sum of:
        0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06377687 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.

0.04630131 = product of:
  0.18520524 = sum of:
    0.10155052 = weight(_text_:case in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10155052 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.5828877 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
    0.08365472 = weight(_text_:studies in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08365472 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Series

Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34

0.0459584 = product of:
  0.12255573 = sum of:
    0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 4194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059839215 = score(doc=4194,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 4194, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4194)
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 4194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=4194,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 4194, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4194)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 4194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=4194,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4194, 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=4194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The use of primary source materials is recognized as key to supporting history and social studies education. The extensive digitization of library, museum, and other cultural heritage collections represents an important teaching resource. Yet, searching and selecting digital primary sources appropriate for classroom use can be difficult and time-consuming. This study investigates the design requirements and the potential usefulness of a domain-specific ontology to facilitate access to, and use of, a collection of digital primary source materials developed by the Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. During a three-phase study, an ontology model was designed and evaluated with the involvement of social studies teachers. The findings revealed that the design of the ontology was appropriate to support the information needs of the teachers and was perceived as a potentially useful tool to enhance collection access. The primary contribution of this study is the introduction of an approach to ontology development that is user-centered and designed to facilitate access to digital cultural heritage materials. Such an approach should be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to the size of the ontology being built, the nature of the knowledge domain, and the type of end users targeted.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:11:34

0.04577707 = product of:
  0.18310829 = sum of:
    0.040918473 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040918473 = score(doc=1056,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3143245 = fieldWeight in 1056, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1056)
    0.14218982 = weight(_text_:pacific in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14218982 = score(doc=1056,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3193714 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.059301 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44521773 = fieldWeight in 1056, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.059301 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1056)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The ever increasing amount of digitally available information is curse and blessing at the same time. On the one hand, users have increasingly large amounts of information at their fingertips. On the other hand, the assessment and refinement of web search results becomes more and more tiresome and difficult for non-experts in a domain. Therefore, established digital libraries offer specialized collections with a certain degree of quality. This quality can largely be attributed to the great effort invested into semantic enrichment of the provided documents e.g. by annotating their documents with respect to a domain-specific taxonomy. This process is still done manually in many domains, e.g. chemistry CAS, medicine MeSH, or mathematics MSC. But due to the growing amount of data, this manual task gets more and more time consuming and expensive. The only solution for this problem seems to employ automated classification algorithms, but from evaluations done in previous research, conclusions to a real world scenario are difficult to make. We therefore conducted a large scale feasibility study on a real world data set from one of the biggest mathematical digital libraries, i.e. Zentralblatt MATH, with special focus on its practical applicability.

Source

15th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries ICADL 2013. Bangalore, India. [to appear, 2013]

0.044369865 = product of:
  0.11831964 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
    0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059839215 = score(doc=4154,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to describe the way participants in the hobby of gourmet cooking in the USA manage culinary information in their homes. Design/methodology/approach - The study utilizes domain analysis and serious leisure as a conceptual framework and employs an ethnographic approach. In total 20 gourmet cooks in the USA were interviewed at home and then their culinary information collections were documented through a guided tour and photographic inventory. The resulting ethnographic record was analyzed using grounded theory and NVivo software. Findings - The findings introduce the personal culinary library (PCL): a constellation of cooking-related information resources and information structures in the home of the gourmet cook, and an associated set of upkeep activities that increase with the collection's size. PCLs are shown to vary in content, scale, distribution in space, and their role in the hobby. The personal libraries are characterized as small, medium or large and case studies of each extreme are presented. Larger PCLs are cast as a bibliographic pyramid distributed throughout the home in the form of a mother lode, zone, recipe collection, and binder. Practical implications - Insights are provided into three areas: scientific ethnography as a methodology; a theory of documents in the hobby; and the changing role of information professionals given the increasing prevalence of home-based information collections. Originality/value - This project provides an original conceptual framework and research method for the study of information in personal spaces such as the home, and describes information phenomena in a popular, serious leisure, hobby setting.

0.043031156 = product of:
  0.114749745 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=2039,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2039, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2039)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 2039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=2039,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2039, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2039)
    0.03758089 = product of:
      0.07516178 = sum of:
        0.07516178 = weight(_text_:area in 2039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07516178 = score(doc=2039,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38494104 = fieldWeight in 2039, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2039)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Calls for interdisciplinary collaboration have become increasingly common in the face of large-scale complex problems (including climate change, economic inequality, and education, among others); however, outcomes of such collaborations have been mixed, due, among other things, to the so-called "translation problem" in interdisciplinary research. This article presents a potential solution: an empirical approach to quantitatively measure both the degree and nature of differences among disciplinary tongues through the social and epistemic terms used (a research area we refer to as discourse epistemetrics), in a case study comparing dissertations in philosophy, psychology, and physics. Using a support-vector model of machine learning to classify disciplines based on relative frequencies of social and epistemic terms, we were able to markedly improve accuracy over a random selection baseline (distinguishing between disciplines with as high as 90% accuracy) as well as acquire sets of most indicative terms for each discipline by their relative presence or absence. These lists were then considered in light of findings of sociological and epistemological studies of disciplines and found to validate the approach's measure of social and epistemic disciplinary identities and contrasts. Based on the findings of our study, we conclude by considering the beneficiaries of research in this area, including bibliometricians, students, and science policy makers, among others, as well as laying out a research program that expands the number of disciplines, considers shifts in socio-epistemic identities over time and applies these methods to nonacademic epistemological communities (e.g., political groups).

0.042074133 = product of:
  0.16829653 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=4561,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=4561,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper examines collections of citations that individual users contribute to social tagging systems such as Delicious and LibraryThing. I characterize these personal collections, furnished with various forms of metadata and arranged for Web display, as a means of communication, where a particular sensibility molds guiding principles for resource selection, description, and categorization. Using several analytic frameworks from museum studies, I present three brief case studies that interrogate both the substance and the means of expression achieved in such collections, which I term "expressive bibliographies." In considering these case studies, I explore how an explicit rhetorical perspective might inform purposeful design of expressive bibliography.

0.04146397 = product of:
  0.11057059 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2363,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2363, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2363)
    0.06037259 = weight(_text_:studies in 2363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06037259 = score(doc=2363,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3818022 = fieldWeight in 2363, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2363)
    0.0265737 = product of:
      0.0531474 = sum of:
        0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 2363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0531474 = score(doc=2363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 2363, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The international literature on information science has devoted attention to ethical studies in information, especially due to the development of information technologies. However, the information organization activities have incipient ethical studies that are mostly focused on libraries. Thus, the area of archival science still lacks studies of this nature, which leads to question how the codes of ethics for archivists address issues related to ethical dilemmas of information organization activities, especially in core activities of arrangement and document description. Thus, this study aims to identify and analyze ethical values related to those aforementioned activities, by analyzing the codes of the following countries: Brazil, Portugal, France, Spain, Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Switzerland and the ICA codes of ethics. Applying a content analysis, the following values were found: access and use, authenticity, confidentiality, conservation, custody, impartiality, information access, information security, physical preservation of the record, reliability, respect for provenance, respect for the original order, respect for the preservation of the archival value of the record.

0.041375466 = product of:
  0.110334575 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.07328778 = weight(_text_:case in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07328778 = score(doc=5491,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.420663 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5491, 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=5491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

RDS are usually cross-disciplinary, centralised services, which are increasingly provided at a university by the academic library and in collaboration with other RDM stakeholders, such as the Research Office. At research-intensive universities, research data is generated in a wide range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This paper will discuss how providing discipline-specific RDM support is approached by such universities and academic libraries, and the advantages and disadvantages of these central and discipline-specific approaches. A descriptive case study on the author's experiences of collaborating with a central RDS at the University of Cambridge, as a subject librarian embedded in an academic department, is a major component of this paper. The case study describes how centralised RDM services offered by the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) have been adapted to meet discipline-specific needs in the Department of Chemistry. It will introduce the department and the OSC, and describe the author's role in delivering RDM training, as well as the Data Champions programme, and their membership of the RDM Project Group. It will describe the outcomes of this collaboration for the Department of Chemistry, and for the centralised service. Centralised and discipline-specific approaches to RDS provision have their own advantages and disadvantages. Supporting the discipline-specific RDM needs of researchers is proving particularly challenging for universities to address sustainably: it requires adequate financial resources and staff skilled (or re-skilled) in RDM. A mixed approach is the most desirable, cost-effective way of providing RDS, but this still has constraints.

Date

7. 9.2019 21:30:22