Search (1745 results, page 1 of 88)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Ackermann, E.: Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism : what's the difference? (2001) 0.12 
    0.124879256 = product of:
  0.24975851 = sum of:
    0.24975851 = product of:
      0.49951702 = sum of:
        0.19491641 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19491641 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41617826 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
        0.30460063 = weight(_text_:2c in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30460063 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.5202602 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.
  2. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.12 
    0.11907353 = product of:
  0.23814707 = sum of:
    0.23814707 = sum of:
      0.19824167 = weight(_text_:h.f in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19824167 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.5174077 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch den Beitrag von H.F. Goenner zu A. Einstein und S.B. Preuss
  3. Witschel, H.F.: Global term weights in distributed environments (2008) 0.12 
    0.11907353 = product of:
  0.23814707 = sum of:
    0.23814707 = sum of:
      0.19824167 = weight(_text_:h.f in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19824167 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.5174077 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2096, 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=2096)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.2008 9:44:22
  4. Matia, K.; Nunes Amaral, L.A.; Luwel, M.; Moed, H.F.; Stanley, H.E.: Scaling phenomena in the growth dynamics of scientific output (2005) 0.12 
    0.11602857 = sum of:
  0.016907735 = product of:
    0.06763094 = sum of:
      0.06763094 = weight(_text_:authors in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06763094 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.09912083 = product of:
    0.19824167 = sum of:
      0.19824167 = weight(_text_:h.f in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19824167 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.5174077 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We analyze a set of three databases at different levels of aggregation: (a) a database of approximately 106 publications from 247 countries published from 1980-2001, (b) a database of 508 academic institutions from the European Union (EU) and 408 institutes from the United States for the 11-year period of 1991-2001, and (c) a database of 2,330 Flemish authors published in the period from 1980-2000. At all levels of aggregation we find that the mean annual growth rates of publications is independent of the number of publications of the various units involved. We also find that the standard deviation of the distribution of annual growth rates decays with the number of publications as a Power law with exponent 0.3. These findings are consistent with those of recent studies of systems such as the size of research and development funding budgets of countries, the research publication volumes of U.S. universities, and the size of business firms.
  5. Glänzel, W.; Moed, H.F.: Journal impact measures in bibliometric research (2002) 0.12 
    0.115640976 = product of:
  0.23128195 = sum of:
    0.23128195 = product of:
      0.4625639 = sum of:
        0.4625639 = weight(_text_:h.f in 2904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4625639 = score(doc=2904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            1.2072847 = fieldWeight in 2904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Moed, H.F.: ¬The effect of "open access" on citation impact : an analysis of ArXiv's condensed matter section (2007) 0.10 
    0.096690476 = sum of:
  0.014089779 = product of:
    0.056359116 = sum of:
      0.056359116 = weight(_text_:authors in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056359116 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0826007 = product of:
    0.1652014 = sum of:
      0.1652014 = weight(_text_:h.f in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1652014 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.43117312 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article statistically analyzes how the citation impact of articles deposited in the Condensed Matter section of the preprint server ArXiv (hosted by Cornell University), and subsequently published in a scientific journal, compares to that of articles in the same journal that were not deposited in the archive. Its principal aim is to further illustrate and roughly estimate the effect of two factors, early view and quality bias, on differences in citation impact between these two sets of papers, using citation data from Thomson Scientific's Web of Science. It presents estimates for a number of journals in the field of condensed matter physics. To discriminate between an open access effect and an early view effect, longitudinal citation data were analyzed covering a time period as long as 7 years. Quality bias was measured by calculating ArXiv citation impact differentials at the level of individual authors publishing in a journal, taking into account coauthorship. The analysis provided evidence of a strong quality bias and early view effect. Correcting for these effects, there is in a sample of six condensed matter physics journals studied in detail no sign of a general open access advantage of papers deposited in ArXiv. The study does provide evidence that ArXiv accelerates citation due to the fact that ArXiv makes papers available earlier rather than makes them freely available.
  7. Gödert, W.; Hubrich, J.; Boteram, F.: Thematische Recherche und Interoperabilität : Wege zur Optimierung des Zugriffs auf heterogen erschlossene Dokumente (2009) 0.09 
    0.09277741 = sum of:
  0.07615016 = product of:
    0.30460063 = sum of:
      0.30460063 = weight(_text_:2c in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.30460063 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.5202602 = queryWeight, product of:
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01662725 = product of:
    0.0332545 = sum of:
      0.0332545 = weight(_text_:22 in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0332545 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 193, 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=193)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bib-info/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/authorsearch/author/%22Hubrich%2C+Jessica%22/docId/703/start/0/rows/20
  8. Reedijk, J.; Moed, H.F.: Is the impact of journal impact factors decreasing? (2008) 0.09 
    0.08560394 = sum of:
  0.019523373 = product of:
    0.07809349 = sum of:
      0.07809349 = weight(_text_:authors in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07809349 = score(doc=1734,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06608056 = product of:
    0.13216113 = sum of:
      0.13216113 = weight(_text_:h.f in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13216113 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.3449385 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of the use of the citation-based journal impact factor for evaluative purposes upon the behaviour of authors and editors. It seeks to give a critical examination of a number of claims as regards the manipulability of this indicator on the basis of an empirical analysis of publication and referencing practices of authors and journal editors Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes mechanisms that may affect the numerical values of journal impact factors. It also analyses general, "macro" patterns in large samples of journals in order to obtain indications of the extent to which such mechanisms are actually applied on a large scale. Finally it presents case studies of particular science journals in order to illustrate what their effects may be in individual cases. Findings - The paper shows that the commonly used journal impact factor can to some extent be relatively easily manipulated. It discusses several types of strategic editorial behaviour, and presents cases in which journal impact factors were - intentionally or otherwise - affected by particular editorial strategies. These findings lead to the conclusion that one must be most careful in interpreting and using journal impact factors, and that authors, editors and policy makers must be aware of their potential manipulability. They also show that some mechanisms occur as of yet rather infrequently, while for others it is most difficult if not impossible to assess empirically how often they are actually applied. If their frequency of occurrence increases, one should come to the conclusion that the impact of impact factors is decreasing. Originality/value - The paper systematically describes a number of claims about the manipulability of journal impact factors that are often based on "informal" or even anecdotal evidences and illustrates how these claims can be further examined in thorough empirical research of large data samples.
  9. Stein, A.; Reibold, H.F.: So werden sie gefunden : Homepage-Anmeldung bei Suchmaschinen (2000) 0.08 
    0.0826007 = product of:
  0.1652014 = sum of:
    0.1652014 = product of:
      0.3304028 = sum of:
        0.3304028 = weight(_text_:h.f in 4446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3304028 = score(doc=4446,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.86234623 = fieldWeight in 4446, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4446)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  10. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.08 
    0.07842762 = sum of:
  0.05847492 = product of:
    0.23389968 = sum of:
      0.23389968 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23389968 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.41617826 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0199527 = product of:
    0.0399054 = sum of:
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = 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(1/2)
    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
  11. Hickey, T.B.; Toves, J.; O'Neill, E.T.: NACO normalization : a detailed examination of the authority file comparison rules (2006) 0.06 
    0.05744405 = sum of:
  0.0341659 = product of:
    0.1366636 = sum of:
      0.1366636 = weight(_text_:authors in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1366636 = score(doc=5760,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5760, 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=5760)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Normalization rules are essential for interoperability between bibliographic systems. In the process of working with Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) authority files to match records with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and developing the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema, the authors found inconsistencies in independently created NACO normalization implementations. Investigating these, the authors found ambiguities in the NACO standard that need resolution, and came to conclusions on how the procedure could be simplified with little impact on matching headings. To encourage others to test their software for compliance with the current rules, the authors have established a Web site that has test files and interactive services showing their current implementation.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Elovici, Y.; Shapira, Y.B.; Kantor, P.B.: ¬A decision theoretic approach to combining information filters : an analytical and empirical evaluation. (2006) 0.05 
    0.05117449 = sum of:
  0.02789634 = product of:
    0.11158536 = sum of:
      0.11158536 = weight(_text_:authors in 5267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11158536 = score(doc=5267,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 5267, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5267)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 5267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=5267,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5267, 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=5267)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The outputs of several information filtering (IF) systems can be combined to improve filtering performance. In this article the authors propose and explore a framework based on the so-called information structure (IS) model, which is frequently used in Information Economics, for combining the output of multiple IF systems according to each user's preferences (profile). The combination seeks to maximize the expected payoff to that user. The authors show analytically that the proposed framework increases users expected payoff from the combined filtering output for any user preferences. An experiment using the TREC-6 test collection confirms the theoretical findings.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:05:39
  13. Spinner, H.F.: Ordnungen des Wissens: Wissensorganisation, Wissensrepräsentation, Wissensordnung (2000) 0.05 
    0.049560416 = product of:
  0.09912083 = sum of:
    0.09912083 = product of:
      0.19824167 = sum of:
        0.19824167 = weight(_text_:h.f in 6630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19824167 = score(doc=6630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38314402 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049089137 = queryNorm
            0.5174077 = fieldWeight in 6630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.805067 = idf(docFreq=48, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  14. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.05 
    0.04512512 = sum of:
  0.016907735 = product of:
    0.06763094 = sum of:
      0.06763094 = weight(_text_:authors in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06763094 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028217383 = product of:
    0.056434765 = sum of:
      0.056434765 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056434765 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  15. Resnick, M.L.; Vaughan, M.W.: Best practices and future visions for search user interfaces (2006) 0.04 
    0.043863848 = sum of:
  0.023911148 = product of:
    0.09564459 = sum of:
      0.09564459 = weight(_text_:authors in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09564459 = score(doc=5293,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5293, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5293)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0199527 = product of:
    0.0399054 = sum of:
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=5293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5293, 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=5293)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The authors describe a set of best practices that were developed to assist in the design of search user interfaces. Search user interfaces represent a challenging design domain because novices who have no desire to learn the mechanics of search engine architecture or algorithms often use them. These can lead to frustration and task failure when it is not addressed by the user interface. The best practices are organized into five domains: the corpus, search algorithms, user and task context, the search interface, and mobility. In each section the authors present an introduction to the design challenges related to the domain and a set of best practices for creating a user interface that facilitates effective use by a broad population of users and tasks.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 17:38:51
  16. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.04 
    0.043863848 = sum of:
  0.023911148 = product of:
    0.09564459 = sum of:
      0.09564459 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09564459 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0199527 = product of:
    0.0399054 = sum of:
      0.0399054 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399054 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:05:07
  17. Kavcic-Colic, A.: Archiving the Web : some legal aspects (2003) 0.04 
    0.043003842 = sum of:
  0.01972569 = product of:
    0.07890276 = sum of:
      0.07890276 = weight(_text_:authors in 4754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07890276 = score(doc=4754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 4754, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4754)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 4754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=4754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4754, 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=4754)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Technological developments have changed the concepts of publication, reproduction and distribution. However, legislation, and in particular the Legal Deposit Law has not adjusted to these changes - it is very restrictive in the sense of protecting the rights of authors of electronic publications. National libraries and national archival institutions, being aware of their important role in preserving the written and spoken cultural heritage, try to find different legal ways to live up to these responsibilities. This paper presents some legal aspects of archiving Web pages, examines the harvesting of Web pages, provision of public access to pages, and their long-term preservation.
    Date
    10.12.2005 11:22:13
  18. Jones, M.; Buchanan, G.; Cheng, T.-C.; Jain, P.: Changing the pace of search : supporting background information seeking (2006) 0.04 
    0.043003842 = sum of:
  0.01972569 = product of:
    0.07890276 = sum of:
      0.07890276 = weight(_text_:authors in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07890276 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5287, 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=5287)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Almost all Web searches are carried out while the user is sitting at a conventional desktop computer connected to the Internet. Although online, handheld, mobile search offers new possibilities, the fast-paced, focused style of interaction may not be appropriate for all user search needs. The authors explore an alternative, relaxed style for Web searching that asynchronously combines an offline handheld computer and an online desktop personal computer. They discuss the role and utility of such an approach, present a tool to meet these user needs, and discuss its relation to other systems.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:37:49
  19. Horn, M.E.: "Garbage" in, "refuse and refuse disposal" out : making the most of the subject authority file in the OPAC (2002) 0.04 
    0.043003842 = sum of:
  0.01972569 = product of:
    0.07890276 = sum of:
      0.07890276 = weight(_text_:authors in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07890276 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Subject access in the OPAC, as discussed in this article, is predicated on two different kinds of searching: subject (authority, alphabetic, or controlled vocabulary searching) or keyword (uncontrolled, free text, natural language vocabulary). The literature has focused on demonstrating that both approaches are needed, but very few authors address the need to integrate keyword into authority searching. The article discusses this difference and compares, with a query on the term garbage, search results in two online catalogs, one that performs keyword searches through the authority file and one where only bibliographic records are included in keyword searches.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  20. Copeland, A.; Hamburger, S.; Hamilton, J.; Robinson, K.J.: Cataloging and digitizing ephemera : one team's experience with Pennsylvania German broadsides and fraktur (2006) 0.04 
    0.043003842 = sum of:
  0.01972569 = product of:
    0.07890276 = sum of:
      0.07890276 = weight(_text_:authors in 768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07890276 = score(doc=768,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22378825 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 768, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=768)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02327815 = product of:
    0.0465563 = sum of:
      0.0465563 = weight(_text_:22 in 768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0465563 = score(doc=768,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17190179 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049089137 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 768, 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=768)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The growing interest in ephemera collections within libraries will necessitate the bibliographic control of materials that do not easily fall into traditional categories. This paper discusses the many challenges confronting catalogers when approaching a mixed collection of unique materials of an ephemeral nature. Based on their experience cataloging a collection of Pennsylvania German broadsides and Fraktur at the Pennsylvania State University, the authors describe the process of deciphering handwriting, preserving genealogical information, deciding on cataloging approaches at the format and field level, and furthering access to the materials through digitization and the Encoded Archival Description finding aid. Observations are made on expanding the skills of traditional book catalogers to include manuscript cataloging, and on project management.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Languages

Types

  • a 1458
  • m 204
  • el 84
  • s 77
  • b 26
  • x 16
  • i 8
  • r 4
  • n 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications