Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Literaturübersicht"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Dewey, S.H.: Foucault's toolbox : use of Foucault's writings in LIS journal literature, 1990-2016 (2020) 0.02 
    0.016698817 = product of:
  0.033397634 = sum of:
    0.033397634 = product of:
      0.06679527 = sum of:
        0.06679527 = weight(_text_:network in 5841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06679527 = score(doc=5841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27150726 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060966637 = queryNorm
            0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 5841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose To provide a close, detailed analysis of the frequency, nature, and depth of visible use of Michel Foucault's works by library and information science/studies (LIS) scholars. Design/methodology/approach The study conducted extensive full-text searches in a large number of electronically available LIS journal databases to find citations of Foucault's works, then examined each cited article to evaluate the nature and depth of use. Findings Most uses of Foucault are brief or in passing. In-depth explorations of Foucault's works are comparatively rare and relatively little-used by other LIS scholars. Yet the relatively brief uses of Foucault encompass a wide array of different topics spread across a wide spectrum of LIS journal literature. Research limitations/implications The study was limited to articles from particular relatively prominent LIS journals. Results might vary if different journals or non-journal literature were studied. More sophisticated bibliometric techniques might reveal different relative performance among journals and might better test, confirm, or reject various patterns and relationships found here. Other research approaches, such as discourse analysis, social network analysis, or scholar interviews, might reveal patterns of use and influence not visible in this literature sample. Originality/value This intensive study of both quality and quantity of citations may challenge some existing assumptions regarding citation analysis, plus illuminating Foucault scholarship. It also indicates possible problems for future application of artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to similar depth-of-use studies.
  2. Siqueira, J.; Martins, D.L.: Workflow models for aggregating cultural heritage data on the web : a systematic literature review (2022) 0.02 
    0.015857482 = product of:
  0.031714965 = sum of:
    0.031714965 = product of:
      0.09514489 = sum of:
        0.09514489 = weight(_text_:objects in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09514489 = score(doc=464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32404202 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.060966637 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In recent years, different cultural institutions have made efforts to spread culture through the construction of a unique search interface that integrates their digital objects and facilitates data retrieval for lay users. However, integrating cultural data is not a trivial task; therefore, this work performs a systematic literature review on data aggregation workflows, in order to answer five questions: What are the projects? What are the planned steps? Which technologies are used? Are the steps performed manually, automatically, or semi-automatically? Which perform semantic search? The searches were carried out in three databases: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Scopus and Web of Science. In Q01, 12 projects were selected. In Q02, 9 stages were identified: Harvesting, Ingestion, Mapping, Indexing, Storing, Monitoring, Enriching, Displaying, and Publishing LOD. In Q03, 19 different technologies were found it. In Q04, we identified that most of the solutions are semi-automatic and, in Q05, that most of them perform a semantic search. The analysis of the workflows allowed us to identify that there is no consensus regarding the stages, their nomenclatures, and technologies, besides presenting superficial discussions. But it allowed to identify the main steps for the implementation of the aggregation of cultural data.

Authors