Search (248 results, page 13 of 13)

0.0070635104 = product of:
  0.014127021 = sum of:
    0.014127021 = product of:
      0.028254041 = sum of:
        0.028254041 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028254041 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 566, 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=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Section 1 Context and purpose of knowledge architecture -- 1 Making the case for knowledge architecture -- 2 The landscape of knowledge assets -- 3 Knowledge architecture and design -- 4 Knowledge architecture reference model -- 5 Knowledge architecture segments -- Section 2 Designing for availability -- 6 Knowledge object modeling -- 7 Knowledge structures for encoding, formatting, and packaging -- 8 Functional architecture for identification and distinction -- 9 Functional architectures for knowledge asset disposition and destruction -- 10 Functional architecture designs for knowledge preservation and conservation -- Section 3 Designing for accessibility -- 11 Functional architectures for knowledge seeking and discovery -- 12 Functional architecture for knowledge search -- 13 Functional architecture for knowledge categorization -- 14 Functional architectures for indexing and keywording -- 15 Functional architecture for knowledge semantics -- 16 Functional architecture for knowledge abstraction and surrogation -- Section 4 Functional architectures to support knowledge consumption -- 17 Functional architecture for knowledge augmentation, derivation, and synthesis -- 18 Functional architecture to manage risk and harm -- 19 Functional architectures for knowledge authentication and provenance -- 20 Functional architectures for securing knowledge assets -- 21 Functional architectures for authorization and asset management -- Section 5 Pulling it all together - the big picture knowledge architecture -- 22 Functional architecture for knowledge metadata and metainformation -- 23 The whole knowledge architecture - pulling it all together

0.0070635104 = product of:
  0.014127021 = sum of:
    0.014127021 = product of:
      0.028254041 = sum of:
        0.028254041 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028254041 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:25:18

0.0058421064 = product of:
  0.011684213 = sum of:
    0.011684213 = product of:
      0.023368426 = sum of:
        0.023368426 = weight(_text_:classification in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023368426 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.0058421064 = product of:
  0.011684213 = sum of:
    0.011684213 = product of:
      0.023368426 = sum of:
        0.023368426 = weight(_text_:classification in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023368426 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose This article describes the third part of a three-stage study investigating the information behaviour of fans and fan communities, the first stage of which is described in the study by Price and Robinson (2017). Design/methodology/approach Using tag analysis as a method, a comparative case study was undertaken to explore three aspects of fan information behaviour: information gatekeeping; classifying and tagging and entrepreneurship and economic activity. The case studies took place on three sites used by fans-Tumblr, Archive of Our Own (AO3) and Etsy. Supplementary semi-structured interviews with site users were used to augment the findings with qualitative data. Findings These showed that fans used tags in a variety of ways quite apart from classification purposes. These included tags being used on Tumblr as meta-commentary and a means of dialogue between users, as well as expressors of emotion and affect towards posts. On AO3 in particular, fans had developed a practice called "tag wrangling" to mitigate the inherent "messiness" of tagging. Evidence was also found of a "hybrid market economy" on Etsy fan stores. From the study findings, a taxonomy of fan-related tags was developed. Research limitations/implications Findings are limited to the tagging practices on only three sites used by fans during Spring 2016, and further research on other similar sites are recommended. Longitudinal studies of these sites would be beneficial in understanding how or whether tagging practices change over time. Testing of the fan-tag taxonomy developed in this paper is also recommended. Originality/value This research develops a method for using tag analysis to describe information behaviour. It also develops a fan-tag taxonomy, which may be used in future research on the tagging practices of fans, which heretofore have been a little-studied section of serious leisure information users.

0.0058421064 = product of:
  0.011684213 = sum of:
    0.011684213 = product of:
      0.023368426 = sum of:
        0.023368426 = weight(_text_:classification in 357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023368426 = score(doc=357,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 357, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=357)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Employing approaches adopted from studies of library and information science (LIS) research trends performed by Järvelin et al., this content analysis systematically examines the evolution and distribution of LIS research topics and data collection methods at 6-year increments from 2006 to 2018. Bibliographic data were collected for 3,422 articles published in LIS journals in the years 2006, 2012, and 2018. While the classification schemes provided in the Järvelin studies do not indicate much change, an analysis of subtopics, data sources, and keywords indicates a substantial impact of social media and data science on the discipline, which emerged at some point between the years of 2012 and 2018. These findings suggest a type of shift in the focus of LIS research, with social media and data science topics playing a role in well over one-third of articles published in 2018, compared with approximately 5% in 2012 and virtually none in 2006. The shift in LIS research foci based on these two technologies/approaches appears similar in extent to those produced by the introduction of information systems in library science in the 1960s, or the Internet in the 1990s, suggesting that these recent advancements are fundamental to the identity of LIS as a discipline.

0.0052976324 = product of:
  0.010595265 = sum of:
    0.010595265 = product of:
      0.02119053 = sum of:
        0.02119053 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02119053 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.005111843 = product of:
  0.010223686 = sum of:
    0.010223686 = product of:
      0.020447372 = sum of:
        0.020447372 = weight(_text_:classification in 717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020447372 = score(doc=717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 717, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.7, p.685-686 (Lucy Ingrey).

0.00438158 = product of:
  0.00876316 = sum of:
    0.00876316 = product of:
      0.01752632 = sum of:
        0.01752632 = weight(_text_:classification in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01752632 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.10555911 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.3/4, p.329-331 (Erica Zhang).