Search (2212 results, page 1 of 111)

0.16141567 = product of:
  0.32283133 = sum of:
    0.27578065 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27578065 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.04705067 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04705067 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.114908606 = product of:
  0.45963442 = sum of:
    0.45963442 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.45963442 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.099188834 = product of:
  0.39675534 = sum of:
    0.39675534 = weight(_text_:field's in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.39675534 = score(doc=1891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.7783933 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper speculates on directions for research in the field of bibliographical control, where bibliographical control is taken to include indexing, classification, and cataloging. The approach taken is to consider questions in the field that need answering. The position taken is that while concerns of a how-to-do-it nature drive this field's research, which is of an evaluative or developmental nature, there is a strong need for this research to be backed by basic theoretical research

0.099188834 = product of:
  0.39675534 = sum of:
    0.39675534 = weight(_text_:field's in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.39675534 = score(doc=3655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.7783933 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the history of 'the social' in information science. It traces the influence of social scientific thinking on the development of the field's intellectual base. The continuing appropriation of both theoretical and methodological insights from domains such as social studies of science, science and technology studies, and socio-technical systems is discussed.

0.09192689 = product of:
  0.36770755 = sum of:
    0.36770755 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36770755 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.08043603 = product of:
  0.3217441 = sum of:
    0.3217441 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3217441 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.

0.074391626 = product of:
  0.2975665 = sum of:
    0.2975665 = weight(_text_:field's in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2975665 = score(doc=2612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.583795 = fieldWeight in 2612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An eponym is an expression that consists of an individual's name plus a wor denoting some idea or thing associated with that person. The literatures of psychology and mathematics discuss the use of eponyms, and the presence of eponyms probably affects searches for information in those fields. In a study of 4.506 articles published in 1982, the author found that 4,4 percent of psychology article titles and 33,4 percent of methmatics article titles contained at least one eponym each. In psychology, 74 of 95 eponyms occured in articles that listed references to other works authored by the respective individuals associated with the eponyms. In mathematics, 688 of 1.105 eponyms occured in articles that cited other works having the respective names of the eponymous individuals in their titles. A comparison showed that 16,8 percent of psychology article eponyms and 39,9 percent of mathematics article eponyms exactly matched entries in at least one of their field's vocabulary lists

0.074391626 = product of:
  0.2975665 = sum of:
    0.2975665 = weight(_text_:field's in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2975665 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.583795 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we identify, compare, and contrast theoretical constructs for the fields of information searching and information retrieval to emphasize the uniqueness of and synergy between the fields. Theoretical constructs are the foundational elements that underpin a field's core theories, models, assumptions, methodologies, and evaluation metrics. We provide a framework to compare and contrast the theoretical constructs in the fields of information searching and information retrieval using intellectual perspective and theoretical orientation. The intellectual perspectives are information searching, information retrieval, and cross-cutting; and the theoretical orientations are information, people, and technology. Using this framework, we identify 17 significant constructs in these fields contrasting the differences and comparing the similarities. We discuss the impact of the interplay among these constructs for moving research forward within both fields. Although there is tension between the fields due to contradictory constructs, an examination shows a trend toward convergence. We discuss the implications for future research within the information searching and information retrieval fields.

0.06894516 = product of:
  0.27578065 = sum of:
    0.27578065 = weight(_text_:3a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27578065 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2918, 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=2918)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4755313%2F4755314%2F04755480.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4755480&authDecision=-203.

0.06894516 = product of:
  0.27578065 = sum of:
    0.27578065 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27578065 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, 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=2514)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.

0.06894516 = product of:
  0.27578065 = sum of:
    0.27578065 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27578065 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

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

0.06894516 = product of:
  0.27578065 = sum of:
    0.27578065 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27578065 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.064425044 = product of:
  0.25770018 = sum of:
    0.25770018 = weight(_text_:field's in 2228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25770018 = score(doc=2228,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.5055813 = fieldWeight in 2228, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2228)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In Information and Intrigue Colin Burke tells the story of one man's plan to revolutionize the world's science information systems and how science itself became enmeshed with ideology and the institutions of modern liberalism. In the 1890s, the idealistic American Herbert Haviland Field established the Concilium Bibliographicum, a Switzerland-based science information service that sent millions of index cards to American and European scientists. Field's radical new idea was to index major ideas rather than books or documents. In his struggle to create and maintain his system, Field became entangled with nationalistic struggles over the control of science information, the new system of American philanthropy (powered by millionaires), the politics of an emerging American professional science, and in the efforts of another information visionary, Paul Otlet, to create a pre-digital worldwide database for all subjects. World War I shuttered the Concilium, and postwar efforts to revive it failed. Field himself died in the influenza epidemic of 1918. Burke carries the story into the next generation, however, describing the astonishingly varied career of Field's son, Noel, who became a diplomat, an information source for Soviet intelligence (as was his friend Alger Hiss), a secret World War II informant for Allen Dulles, and a prisoner of Stalin. Along the way, Burke touches on a range of topics, including the new entrepreneurial university, Soviet espionage in America, and further efforts to classify knowledge.

Content

Raising a perfectly modern HerbertAn unexpected library revolution, at an unexpected place, by an unusual young fellow -- The great men at Harvard and Herbert's information "calling" -- Challenging the British "Lion" of science information -- New information ideas in Zurich, not Brooklyn or Paris -- Starting an information revolution and business, the hard way -- Big debts, big gamble, big building, big friends, a special librarian -- Lydia's other adventurous boy, family responsibilities, to America with hat in hand, war -- From information to intrigue, Herbert, WWI, a young Allen Dulles -- Returning to a family in decline, meeting with the liberal establishment -- To the centers of science and political power, and a new information world -- More conflicts between old and new science -- Wistar and the Council's abstracts vs. Field's elegant classification, round 1 -- A Concilium without Herbert Field, Nina and the Rockefeller's great decisions -- A voyage home and the Council's vision for world science vs. the Concilium, round 2 -- The information consequences of "capitalism's disaster" and the shift to applied science information -- The 1930's ideological journey of the Fields and their liberal friends -- Intrigue begins, in Switzerland, England, and Cambridge -- New loves, a family of agents, science information in war, librarians stealing books?, Soviet espionage without cost -- Looking forward to more intrigue, the postwar stories of big science, big information, and more ideology.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 32) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=32,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 32, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=32)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the next decade, research in school library media should focus explicitly on the relationship between library media programs and student learning. Attention to this topic has been a growing theme in the field's research for decades, and a number of factors argue for making it even more central in the coming years: the increasing emphasis on learning and achievement throughout education; the deepening appreciation for the library media specialist's various roles as they relate to this emphasis on learning; the emergence of electronic information resources that highlight the relationship between learning and information use as never before; and the publication of the Information Literacy Skills for Student Learning in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology [AASL and AECT], 1998). These statements of learning outcomes related to information use tie the school library media field directly to learning as nothing has done before. They provide both a rationale and a conceptual framework for studying students' interactions with information as the kind of authentic learning that is the goal of education in the twenty-first century.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A societyled, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Stressing that some universities have adopted unrealistic requirements for tenure of information systems (IS) faculty members, a recent editorial in MIS Quarterly contends that the group of premier IS journals needs to be generally recognized as having more than just two members. This article introduces the publication power approach to identifying the premier IS journals, and it does indeed find that there are more than two. A journal's publication power is calculated from the actual publishing behaviors of full-time, tenured IS faculty members at a sizable set of leading research universities. The underlying premise is that these researchers produce excellent work, collectively spanning the IS field's subject matter, and that the greatest concentrations of their collective work appear in highest visibility, most important journals suitable for its subject matter. The new empirically based approach to identifying premier IS journals (and, more broadly, identifying journals that figure most prominently in publishing activity of tenured IS researchers) offers an attractive alternative to promulgations by individuals or cliques (possibly based on outdated tradition or vested interests), to opinion surveys (subjective, possibly ill-informed, vague about rating criteria, and/or biased in various ways), and to citation analyses (which ignore semantics of references and, in the case of ISI impact factors, have additional problems that cast considerable doubt on their meaningfulness within the IS field and its subdisciplines). Results of the publication power approach can be applied and supplemented according to needs of a particular university in setting its evaluation standards for IS tenure, promotion, and merit decisions.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Social epistemology" is the social theory or social science of knowledge. After the field's bases in the Anglophone and Continental philosophical traditions are briefly explored, social epistemology's relevance to library and information science (LIS) is established. LIS presumes that knowledge is both an inherently collective product that ought to be made universally available. This is exemplified in the traditionally iconic status of the library. However, the library began to lose its salience in the Cold War, with the massification, technologization, and instrumentalization of knowledge, now renamed "information" to stress its relativity to decision-making contexts. The resulting stress on user-friendly information intensified after the Cold War, with the rise of neoliberalism. In this context, LIS has stood out in reasserting at a practical level the traditional universalist goals of social epistemology. In particular, Don Swanson's work on "undiscovered public knowledge" appears as a major achievement in applied social epistemology and a blow for "epistemic justice." It demonstrates the utility of breaking of default information search patterns that systematically neglect relevant literature in other fields. In the final section, Wikipedia is discussed as a self-organizing experiment in achieving the same effect by refusing to respect any claims to epistemic privilege.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=399,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore meta-models that pertain to information behaviour. It seeks to highlight the possibilities they offer to researchers wishing to develop their own and to readers more generally interested in information behaviour literature. Design/methodology/approach - Various frameworks that may be regarded as information behaviour meta-models were examined and three separate types were identified. These are discussed in turn, with particular characteristics of individual meta-models used to illustrate the types. Findings - A meta-model is considered here to be a model that has been derived from one or more existing models. Information behaviour meta-models fall into three categories: those that unify, within one framework, disparate models/theories from a number of areas; those that integrate the fundamentals of several models which share common strands; and those that recast an established model for a particular purpose. Research limitations/implications - The extent of the typology presented in the paper is bound by the limits of the authors' endeavours in uncovering relevant meta-models. Should further meta-models be traced, it is possible that other types would also come to light. Originality/value - The work will aid the reader's understanding of how theoretical frameworks in information behaviour are developed. It will help those who study the field's literature to grasp variations in the origin of the individual models they see, by demonstrating that models may be derived from others in different ways. It will also enable readers intent on constructing their own models to understand some of the courses of action open to them.