Search (294 results, page 2 of 15)

0.008354569 = product of:
  0.05012741 = sum of:
    0.05012741 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05012741 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.31752092 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 19(1995) H.1, S.30-63

0.008279935 = product of:
  0.04967961 = sum of:
    0.04967961 = weight(_text_:internet in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04967961 = score(doc=1376,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.43761572 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the Internet and the age distribution of research scholars on academic citation age with a mathematical model proposed by Barnett, Fink, and Debus (1989) and a revised model that incorporates information about the online environment and scholar age distribution. The modified model fits the data well, accounting for 99.6% of the variance for science citations and 99.8% for social science citations. The Internet's impact on the aging process of academic citations has been very small, accounting for only 0.1% for the social sciences and 0.8% for the sciences. Rather than resulting in the use of more recent citations, the Internet appears to have lengthened the average life of academic citations by 6 to 8 months. The aging of scholars seems to have a greater impact, accounting for 2.8% of the variance for the sciences and 0.9% for the social sciences. However, because the diffusion of the Internet and the aging of the professoriate are correlated over this time period, differentiating their effects is somewhat problematic.

Theme

Internet

0.008141059 = product of:
  0.048846357 = sum of:
    0.048846357 = product of:
      0.07326953 = sum of:
        0.036800284 = weight(_text_:29 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036800284 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
        0.036469243 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036469243 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 3.2003 19:22:48

0.0075585125 = product of:
  0.045351073 = sum of:
    0.045351073 = weight(_text_:internet in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045351073 = score(doc=4907,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.39948666 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The author examines patterns of productivity in the Internet mailing lists, also known as discussion lists or discussion groups. Datasets have been collected from electronic archives of two Internet mailing lists, the LINGUIST and the History of the English Language. Theoretical models widely used in informetric research have been applied to fit the distribution of posted messages over the population of authors. The Generalized Inverse Poisson-Gaussian and Poisson-lognormal distributions show excellent results in both datasets, while Lotka and Yule-Simon distribution demonstrate poor-to-mediocre fits. In the mailing list where moderation and quality control are enforced to a higher degree, i.e., the LINGUIST, Lotka, and Yule-Simon distributions perform better. The findings can be plausibly explained by the lesser applicability of the success-breedssuccess model to the information production in the electronic communication media, such as Internet mailing lists, where selectivity of publications is marginal or nonexistent. The hypothesis is preliminary, and needs to be validated against the larger variety of datasets. Characteristics of the quality control, competitiveness, and the reward structure in Internet mailing lists as compared to professional scholarly journals are discussed.

Theme

Internet

0.0075585125 = product of:
  0.045351073 = sum of:
    0.045351073 = weight(_text_:internet in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045351073 = score(doc=386,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.39948666 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study explores the factors influencing citations to Internet studies by assessing the relative explanatory power of three perspectives: normative theory, the social constructivist approach, and a natural growth mechanism. Using data on 7,700+ articles of Internet studies published in 100+ Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)-listed journals in 2000-2009, the study adopted a multilevel model to disentangle the impact between article- and journal-level factors on citations. This research strategy resulted in a number of both expected and surprising findings. The primary determinants for citations are found to be journal-level factors, accounting for 14% of the variances in citations of Internet studies. The impact of some, if not all, article-level factors on citations are moderated by journal-level factors. Internet studies, like studies in other areas (e.g., management, demography, and ecology), are cited more for rhetorical purposes, as suggested by the social constructivist approach, rather than as a form of reward, as argued by normative theory. The impact of time on citations varies across journals, which creates a growing "citation gap" for Internet studies published in journals with different characteristics.

0.0074825455 = product of:
  0.044895273 = sum of:
    0.044895273 = weight(_text_:internet in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044895273 = score(doc=1111,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.39547163 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.

0.007161058 = product of:
  0.042966347 = sum of:
    0.042966347 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042966347 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.27216077 = fieldWeight in 5279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5279)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Aus der Benutzung der Universitätsbibliothek Ulm wurde eine Halbwertszeit-Funktion in der naturwissenschaftlichen Literatur von t1/2=5 Jahren bestimmt. Eine interessante Abweichung von dieser Halbwertszeit-Funktion ist bei der Bestellung der neuesten Zeitschriften zu beobachten. Der Grund hierfür liegt vermutlich darin, daß Wissenschaftler das Vierfache an neuester Literatur lesen müssen, um wissenschaftliche Trends zu überschauen. Eine weitere Abweichung ist in der ältesten Literatur festzustellen, bei den sog. 'citation classics'. Übereinstimmung zeigt sich im Zitier- und Kopierverhalten bei Zeitschriftenliteratur, die älter als 2 Jahre ist. Etwa 27% der an die UB Ulm gerichteten Literaturanforderungen betreffen Zeitschriftenaufsätze mit einem Alter von über 10 Jahren, da diese Bestände für die Benutzer nur schwer zugänglich sind. Dies zeigt die große Bedeutung einer Freihand-Bibliothek

0.00697805 = product of:
  0.0418683 = sum of:
    0.0418683 = product of:
      0.06280245 = sum of:
        0.0315431 = weight(_text_:29 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315431 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
        0.03125935 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03125935 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
17.12.2006 19:44:29

0.00697805 = product of:
  0.0418683 = sum of:
    0.0418683 = product of:
      0.06280245 = sum of:
        0.0315431 = weight(_text_:29 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315431 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
        0.03125935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03125935 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.005967549 = product of:
  0.035805292 = sum of:
    0.035805292 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035805292 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Gibt es objektive Kriterien für die Bestellung und Abbestellung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften? Wie lange sollte eine Bibliothek Periodikabestände benutzernah aufstellen? Kann ein Verlag -außer via Verkaufszahlen - auf Kriterien des Erfolgs seiner Zeitschriften zurückgreifen? Hat ein Autor eine Entscheidungsgrundlage, welcher Zeitschrift er seinen Artikel anbietet? Ist die Forschungsaktivität eines Instituts oder eines Wissenschaftlers über den Impact derjenigen Zeitschriftentitel zu evaluieren, die die Forschungsergebnisse drucken? Können die 'Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "des "Institute for Scientific Information" bei der Klärung solcher Fragen helfen? Sind die JCR ein nützliches oder gar ein notwendiges Hilfsmittel für Bibliotheken, für Verlage, für Wissenschaftsmanager und für wissenschaftliche Autoren? Die 'Journal Citation Reports" geben im Jahresrhythmus informetrische Kennzahlen wie die Zitationsrate, den Impact Factor, den Immediacy Index, die Halbwertszeit für eine Auswahl wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften an. Zusätzlich berichten sie darüber, weiche Zeitschriften weiche anderen Zeitschriften zitieren bzw. von diesen zitiert werden, so dass "Soziogramme" wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenkommunikation entstehen. Wir wollen am Beispiel des aktuellen Jahrgangs ( 1999) die JCR detailliert beschreiben, die Auswahlkriterien der Zeitschriften beleuchten, die verwendeten informetrischen Kennwerte - vor allem den Impact Factor - kritisch hinterfragen, um danach die Einsatzgebiete bei Bibliotheken, in der Wissenschaftsevaluation, bei Verlagen und bei Autoren zu diskutieren. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die JCR sind ein nicht umgehbares Hilfsmittel für die fokussierten Anwendungsbereiche. Sie sind mitnichten frei von Problemen. Wir schließen daher mit einigen Verbesserungsvorschlägen

0.005967549 = product of:
  0.035805292 = sum of:
    0.035805292 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035805292 = score(doc=1480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 1480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1480)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, am Beispiel unserer eigenen Disziplin Möglichkeiten zur Recherche nach elektronischen Zeitschriften (EJournals) vorzustellen und zu bewerten. Vorweg drei definitorische Festlegungen: EJournals meint hier via WWW verfügbare Zeitschriften (gleichgültig ob parallel zu einer gedruckten Ausgabe oder ausschliesslich elektronisch, ob zur Gänze oder nur teilweise online). Informationswissenschaft (IW) steht hier für den gesamten Bereich der Bibliotheks-, Informations- und Dokumentationswissenschaft und -praxis (ohne Archiv- und Museumswesen). Webliographisch bedeutet, dass sich die Betrachtung auf Informationssammlungen und Nachweise im WWW beschränkt. Bei den (frei verfügbaren) Webliographien zu EJournals handelt es sich in der Regel um Datenbanken, Verzeichnisse und Linksammlungen. Es mag vielleicht überraschen, dass für das gewählte Fachgebiet eine nahezu unüberschaubare Zahl solcher Nachweise existiert. Zwar scheint dies noch nicht zur Herausbildung von "Webliographien der Webliographien" geführt zu haben, die auf Nachweise von ausschliesslich informationswissenschaftlichen EJournals spezialisiert wären, doch in den diversen fachspezifischen Linksammlungen und Verzeichnissen werden die Sekundärpublikationen, meist in die Auflistung der Primärpublikationen gemischt, durchaus verzeichnet. Fachübergreifend existieren Kompilationen von Verzeichnissen elektronischer Zeitschriften sehr wohl. Als deutsches Beispiel kann der Abschnitt "Elektronische Zeitschriften" der Düsseldorfer Virtuellen Bibliothek angeführt werden, wo Ressourcen und Verzeichnisse/ Datenbanken elektronischer Zeitschriften vorgestellt werden; ein internationales Beispiel ist die auf dem Server der University of Vermont gewartete umfangreiche Zusammenstellung Serials in Cyberspace.

0.005815042 = product of:
  0.034890253 = sum of:
    0.034890253 = product of:
      0.052335378 = sum of:
        0.026285918 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285918 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
        0.02604946 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02604946 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0053446754 = product of:
  0.03206805 = sum of:
    0.03206805 = weight(_text_:internet in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03206805 = score(doc=3458,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.28247973 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Continued development of the Internet requires the development of efficient, easy-to-use search engines. Ideally, such development should call upon knowledge and skills from a variety of disciplines, including computer science, information science, psychology, and ergonomics. The current study is intended to determine whether search engines shows a pattern of interdisciplinarity. 2 disciplines were selected as the focus for the study: computer science, and library/information science. A citation analysis was conducted to measure levels of interdisciplinary research and publishing in Internet search engine design and development. The results show a higher level of interdisciplinarity among library and information scientists than among computer scientists or among any of those categorized as 'other'. This is reflected both in the types of journals in which the authors publish, and in the references they cite to support their work. However, almost no authors published articles or cited references in fields such as cognitive science, ergonomics, or psychology. The results of this study are analyzed in terms of the writings of Patrick Wilson, Bruno Latour, Pierre Bordieu, Fritz Ringer, and Thomas Pinelli, focusing on cognitive authority within a profession, interaction between disciplines, and information-gathering habits of professionals. Suggestions for further research are given

0.005236691 = product of:
  0.031420145 = sum of:
    0.031420145 = weight(_text_:internet in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031420145 = score(doc=3360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The number of physics and astronomy preprints (manuscripts intended for publication but circulated for peer comment prior to submission) available electronically has increased dramatically over the past 5 years and Internet accessible preprint Web servers at the Stanford Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) and the Los Alamos National Laboratoty (LANL) provide unrestricted access to citations and full text of many of these papers long before they appear in print. Includes data for periodicals ranked by number of citations to preprints and electronic preprints (e-prints). Identifies the growing importance of e-prints in the published literature and addresses areas of concern regarding their future role in scientific communication, including: inclusion of e-prints in abstracting and indexing services; connecting electronic periodicals with e-prints; guidelines for withdrawal and revision of e-prints; and maintaining the integritiy of the e-print servers

Theme

Internet

0.005236691 = product of:
  0.031420145 = sum of:
    0.031420145 = weight(_text_:internet in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031420145 = score(doc=4474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

There has been much recent interest in extracting information from collections of Web links. One tool that has been used is Ingwersen's Web impact factor. It has been demonstrated that several versions of this metric can produce results that correlate with research ratings of British universities showing that, despite being a measure of a purely Internet phenomenon, the results are susceptible to a wider interpretation. This paper addresses the question of which is the best possible domain to count backlinks from, if research is the focus of interest. WIFs for British universities calculated from several different source domains are compared, primarily the .edu, .ac.uk and .uk domains, and the entire Web. The results show that all four areas produce WIFs that correlate strongly with research ratings, but that none produce incontestably superior figures. It was also found that the WIF was less able to differentiate in more homogeneous subsets of universities, although positive results are still possible.

Theme

Internet

0.005236691 = product of:
  0.031420145 = sum of:
    0.031420145 = weight(_text_:internet in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031420145 = score(doc=5787,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article explores the associations that message features and Web structural features have with perceptions of Web site credibility. In a within-subjects experiment, 84 participants actively located health-related Web sites an the basis of two tasks that differed in task specificity and complexity. Web sites that were deemed most credible were content analyzed for message features and structural features that have been found to be associated with perceptions of source credibility. Regression analyses indicated that message features predicted perceived Web site credibility for both searches when controlling for Internet experience and issue involvement. Advertisements and structural features had no significant effects an perceived Web site credibility. Institutionaffiliated domain names (.gov, org, edu) predicted Web site credibility, but only in the general search, which was more difficult. Implications of results are discussed in terms of online credibility research and Web site design.

Theme

Internet

0.0049371994 = product of:
  0.029623196 = sum of:
    0.029623196 = weight(_text_:internet in 2200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029623196 = score(doc=2200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 2200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2200)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports results of a survey in which the OPACs of 67 US libraries were searched using Internet connections to determine the positional operators (AND, SAME, WITH, NEAR, ADJ) selected as the default keyword operator on each catalogue. Results indicated that there is no standard positional operator

0.0049371994 = product of:
  0.029623196 = sum of:
    0.029623196 = weight(_text_:internet in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029623196 = score(doc=2908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.0049371994 = product of:
  0.029623196 = sum of:
    0.029623196 = weight(_text_:internet in 2578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029623196 = score(doc=2578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 2578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2578)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Bibliometrie zur Evaluation wissenschaftlicher Leistung gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung. Vor allem für Hochschulleitungen sind bibliometrische Indices zur Leistungsbeurteilung ihrer Wissenschaftler attraktiv. Die Wissenschaftler hingegen stehen den bibliometrischen Analysen skeptisch gegenüber und nehmen die Indices nur zögerlich an, wie die geringe Nutzung auf ihren Homepages im Internet zeigt. Für Bibliotheken ergibt sich eine neue Aufgabe. Sie sollten sich als Partner beider Gruppen positionieren und durch aktive Beratung ihre Kompetenz auf diesem Feld einbringen.

0.0046310155 = product of:
  0.027786091 = sum of:
    0.027786091 = product of:
      0.08335827 = sum of:
        0.08335827 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08335827 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419