Search (1624 results, page 1 of 82)

0.0939979 = product of:
  0.1879958 = sum of:
    0.1879958 = sum of:
      0.08871522 = weight(_text_:r in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08871522 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.09928059 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09928059 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.08216448 = sum of:
  0.015023118 = product of:
    0.06009247 = sum of:
      0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06009247 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.06714136 = sum of:
    0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031684007 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1410)
    0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035457354 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)

Abstract

This paper aims to study the conceptual dimension of Knowledge Organization (KO) in the ISKO proceedings (1990-2012) domain. After analyzing a corpus of 71 papers that presented the term "knowledge organization" in their titles, using the methodology of Bardin's content analysis, it was possible to obtain a set of 11 definitions of KO which were studied using the following categories: nature, object, tools, processes, and perspectives/approaches. These categories act as a basis to identify the communities of authors that interact in the domain under different conceptual perspectives. The results show that KO has been mainly understood as an area or field of knowledge whose objects are recorded knowledge and conceptual structures, and whose main processes are classification and indexing, as well as information retrieval. The nature of KO is mostly linked to the construction of specialized discourses and the methodological dimension of such area is related to the systematization of recorded scientific knowledge.

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

0.08182828 = product of:
  0.16365656 = sum of:
    0.16365656 = sum of:
      0.063368015 = weight(_text_:r in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063368015 = score(doc=3975,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
      0.10028854 = weight(_text_:22 in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10028854 = score(doc=3975,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:06:44
22. 2.2018 12:13:53

0.08056963 = product of:
  0.16113926 = sum of:
    0.16113926 = sum of:
      0.07604162 = weight(_text_:r in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07604162 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.08509765 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08509765 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.08056963 = product of:
  0.16113926 = sum of:
    0.16113926 = sum of:
      0.07604162 = weight(_text_:r in 2057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07604162 = score(doc=2057,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 2057, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2057)
      0.08509765 = weight(_text_:22 in 2057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08509765 = score(doc=2057,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2057, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2057)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 8.2015 10:22:00

Source

Praxishandbuch Bibliotheksmanagement. Hrsg.: R. Griebel, u.a. Bd.1

0.08056963 = product of:
  0.16113926 = sum of:
    0.16113926 = sum of:
      0.07604162 = weight(_text_:r in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07604162 = score(doc=2555,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
      0.08509765 = weight(_text_:22 in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08509765 = score(doc=2555,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 1.2016 19:22:28

0.08026531 = product of:
  0.16053063 = sum of:
    0.16053063 = sum of:
      0.08961591 = weight(_text_:r in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08961591 = score(doc=4992,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.5172279 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07091471 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.0707098 = sum of:
  0.016996717 = product of:
    0.06798687 = sum of:
      0.06798687 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06798687 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.053713087 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = weight(_text_:r in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025347205 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028365882 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06714136 = product of:
  0.13428272 = sum of:
    0.13428272 = sum of:
      0.063368015 = weight(_text_:r in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063368015 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07091471 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

Type

r

0.06714136 = product of:
  0.13428272 = sum of:
    0.13428272 = sum of:
      0.063368015 = weight(_text_:r in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063368015 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07091471 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.06573158 = sum of:
  0.012018493 = product of:
    0.048073974 = sum of:
      0.048073974 = weight(_text_:authors in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048073974 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.053713087 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = weight(_text_:r in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025347205 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
    0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028365882 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)

Abstract

Purpose - The growing volumes of semantic data available in the web result in the need for handling the information overload phenomenon. The potential of this amount of data is enormous but in most cases it is very difficult for users to visualize, explore and use this data, especially for lay-users without experience with Semantic Web technologies. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The Visual Information-Seeking Mantra "Overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand" proposed by Shneiderman describes how data should be presented in different stages to achieve an effective exploration. The overview is the first user task when dealing with a data set. The objective is that the user is capable of getting an idea about the overall structure of the data set. Different information architecture (IA) components supporting the overview tasks have been developed, so they are automatically generated from semantic data, and evaluated with end-users. Findings - The chosen IA components are well known to web users, as they are present in most web pages: navigation bars, site maps and site indexes. The authors complement them with Treemaps, a visualization technique for displaying hierarchical data. These components have been developed following an iterative User-Centered Design methodology. Evaluations with end-users have shown that they get easily used to them despite the fact that they are generated automatically from structured data, without requiring knowledge about the underlying semantic technologies, and that the different overview components complement each other as they focus on different information search needs. Originality/value - Obtaining semantic data sets overviews cannot be easily done with the current semantic web browsers. Overviews become difficult to achieve with large heterogeneous data sets, which is typical in the Semantic Web, because traditional IA techniques do not easily scale to large data sets. There is little or no support to obtain overview information quickly and easily at the beginning of the exploration of a new data set. This can be a serious limitation when exploring a data set for the first time, especially for lay-users. The proposal is to reuse and adapt existing IA components to provide this overview to users and show that they can be generated automatically from the thesaurus and ontologies that structure semantic data while providing a comparable user experience to traditional web sites.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06546262 = product of:
  0.13092524 = sum of:
    0.13092524 = sum of:
      0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05069441 = score(doc=1699,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
      0.08023083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08023083 = score(doc=1699,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 22(2010) H.1, S.20-22

0.062348425 = product of:
  0.12469685 = sum of:
    0.12469685 = product of:
      0.4987874 = sum of:
        0.4987874 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4987874 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4437468 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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.

0.060220473 = sum of:
  0.042491794 = product of:
    0.16996717 = sum of:
      0.16996717 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16996717 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017728677 = product of:
    0.035457354 = sum of:
      0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035457354 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.05860793 = sum of:
  0.036429126 = product of:
    0.1457165 = sum of:
      0.1457165 = weight(_text_:authors in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1457165 = score(doc=245,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 245, 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=245)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022178805 = product of:
    0.04435761 = sum of:
      0.04435761 = weight(_text_:r in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04435761 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 245, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=245)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examined the relationships among perceived editorial responsiveness, perceived journal quality, and review time of submissions for authors in mainland China. Online review data generated by authors who have experienced the submission process in 10 Chinese academic journals were collected. The results of Spearman correlation analysis show that Chinese authors' perceived responsiveness of an editorial office is positively correlated with perceived quality of the journal, and the total review time does not affect perceptions of the quality of a journal and its editorial responsiveness.

0.05860793 = sum of:
  0.036429126 = product of:
    0.1457165 = sum of:
      0.1457165 = weight(_text_:authors in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1457165 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022178805 = product of:
    0.04435761 = sum of:
      0.04435761 = weight(_text_:r in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04435761 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.

0.056185715 = product of:
  0.11237143 = sum of:
    0.11237143 = sum of:
      0.06273113 = weight(_text_:r in 1438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273113 = score(doc=1438,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.3620595 = fieldWeight in 1438, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1438)
      0.049640294 = weight(_text_:22 in 1438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049640294 = score(doc=1438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1438, 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=1438)
  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

0.056185715 = product of:
  0.11237143 = sum of:
    0.11237143 = sum of:
      0.06273113 = weight(_text_:r in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273113 = score(doc=2092,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.3620595 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
      0.049640294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049640294 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The object of this literature review is to provide a historical perspective of R and D work in the area of Knowledge Organization (KO). This overview/summarization will provide information on major areas of KO. Journal articles published in core areas of KO: (Classification, Indexing, Thesauri and Taxonomies, Internet and Subject approach to information in the electronic era and Ontologies will be predominantly covered in this literature review. Coverage in this overview may not be completely exhaustive, but it succinctly showcases major developments in the area of KO. This review is a good source of additional reading material on KO apart from prescribed reading material on KO

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

Type

r

0.056133352 = sum of:
  0.021032363 = product of:
    0.08412945 = sum of:
      0.08412945 = weight(_text_:authors in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08412945 = score(doc=1400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1400, 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=1400)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03510099 = product of:
    0.07020198 = sum of:
      0.07020198 = weight(_text_:22 in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07020198 = score(doc=1400,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses and illustrates through examples how meaningful or deep learning can be supported through well-structured presentation of material, through giving learners schemas they can use to organize knowledge in their minds, and through helping learners to understand knowledge organization principles they can use to construct their own schemas. It is a call to all authors, educators and information designers to pay attention to meaningful presentation that expresses the internal structure of the domain and facilitates the learner's assimilation of concepts and their relationships.

Pages

S.22-32

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

0.05558164 = sum of:
  0.025495077 = product of:
    0.101980306 = sum of:
      0.101980306 = weight(_text_:authors in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101980306 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.030086564 = product of:
    0.060173128 = sum of:
      0.060173128 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060173128 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.