Search (684 results, page 1 of 35)

0.12216269 = product of:
  0.24432538 = sum of:
    0.24432538 = sum of:
      0.20573837 = weight(_text_:b.s in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20573837 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.53602904 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
      0.038587015 = weight(_text_:22 in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038587015 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16622254 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1448, 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=1448)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.06857946 = product of:
  0.13715892 = sum of:
    0.13715892 = product of:
      0.27431783 = sum of:
        0.27431783 = weight(_text_:b.s in 4828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27431783 = score(doc=4828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.7147054 = fieldWeight in 4828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.06857946 = product of:
  0.13715892 = sum of:
    0.13715892 = product of:
      0.27431783 = sum of:
        0.27431783 = weight(_text_:b.s in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27431783 = score(doc=4870,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.7147054 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.057946026 = sum of:
  0.0418681 = product of:
    0.1674724 = sum of:
      0.1674724 = weight(_text_:author's in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1674724 = score(doc=5491,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3189878 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016077925 = product of:
    0.03215585 = sum of:
      0.03215585 = weight(_text_:22 in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03215585 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16622254 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5491, 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=5491)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDS are usually cross-disciplinary, centralised services, which are increasingly provided at a university by the academic library and in collaboration with other RDM stakeholders, such as the Research Office. At research-intensive universities, research data is generated in a wide range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This paper will discuss how providing discipline-specific RDM support is approached by such universities and academic libraries, and the advantages and disadvantages of these central and discipline-specific approaches. A descriptive case study on the author's experiences of collaborating with a central RDS at the University of Cambridge, as a subject librarian embedded in an academic department, is a major component of this paper. The case study describes how centralised RDM services offered by the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) have been adapted to meet discipline-specific needs in the Department of Chemistry. It will introduce the department and the OSC, and describe the author's role in delivering RDM training, as well as the Data Champions programme, and their membership of the RDM Project Group. It will describe the outcomes of this collaboration for the Department of Chemistry, and for the centralised service. Centralised and discipline-specific approaches to RDS provision have their own advantages and disadvantages. Supporting the discipline-specific RDM needs of researchers is proving particularly challenging for universities to address sustainably: it requires adequate financial resources and staff skilled (or re-skilled) in RDM. A mixed approach is the most desirable, cost-effective way of providing RDS, but this still has constraints.

Date

7. 9.2019 21:30:22

0.056543037 = product of:
  0.113086075 = sum of:
    0.113086075 = product of:
      0.4523443 = sum of:
        0.4523443 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4523443 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40242863 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.05481977 = sum of:
  0.035526264 = product of:
    0.14210506 = sum of:
      0.14210506 = weight(_text_:author's in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14210506 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3189878 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019293508 = product of:
    0.038587015 = sum of:
      0.038587015 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038587015 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16622254 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

0.05481977 = sum of:
  0.035526264 = product of:
    0.14210506 = sum of:
      0.14210506 = weight(_text_:author's in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14210506 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3189878 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019293508 = product of:
    0.038587015 = sum of:
      0.038587015 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038587015 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16622254 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04746734 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.05143459 = product of:
  0.10286918 = sum of:
    0.10286918 = product of:
      0.20573837 = sum of:
        0.20573837 = weight(_text_:b.s in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20573837 = score(doc=68,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.53602904 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05143459 = product of:
  0.10286918 = sum of:
    0.10286918 = product of:
      0.20573837 = sum of:
        0.20573837 = weight(_text_:b.s in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20573837 = score(doc=5600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.53602904 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0471192 = product of:
  0.0942384 = sum of:
    0.0942384 = product of:
      0.3769536 = sum of:
        0.3769536 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3769536 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40242863 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.042862162 = product of:
  0.085724324 = sum of:
    0.085724324 = product of:
      0.17144865 = sum of:
        0.17144865 = weight(_text_:b.s in 4916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17144865 = score(doc=4916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.4466909 = fieldWeight in 4916, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.042862162 = product of:
  0.085724324 = sum of:
    0.085724324 = product of:
      0.17144865 = sum of:
        0.17144865 = weight(_text_:b.s in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17144865 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.4466909 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

0.042862162 = product of:
  0.085724324 = sum of:
    0.085724324 = product of:
      0.17144865 = sum of:
        0.17144865 = weight(_text_:b.s in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17144865 = score(doc=2100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.4466909 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.042862162 = product of:
  0.085724324 = sum of:
    0.085724324 = product of:
      0.17144865 = sum of:
        0.17144865 = weight(_text_:b.s in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17144865 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.4466909 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.042862162 = product of:
  0.085724324 = sum of:
    0.085724324 = product of:
      0.17144865 = sum of:
        0.17144865 = weight(_text_:b.s in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17144865 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38381943 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.4466909 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.085969 = idf(docFreq=36, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03298344 = product of:
  0.06596688 = sum of:
    0.06596688 = product of:
      0.26386753 = sum of:
        0.26386753 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26386753 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40242863 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, 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=5955)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.028271519 = product of:
  0.056543037 = sum of:
    0.056543037 = product of:
      0.22617215 = sum of:
        0.22617215 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22617215 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40242863 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.028271519 = product of:
  0.056543037 = sum of:
    0.056543037 = product of:
      0.22617215 = sum of:
        0.22617215 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22617215 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40242863 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.025724677 = product of:
  0.051449355 = sum of:
    0.051449355 = product of:
      0.10289871 = sum of:
        0.10289871 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10289871 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16622254 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, 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=2851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.02512086 = product of:
  0.05024172 = sum of:
    0.05024172 = product of:
      0.20096688 = sum of:
        0.20096688 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20096688 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3189878 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04746734 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.