Search (200 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Eyert, F.: Mathematische Wissenschaftskommunikation in der digitalen Gesellschaft (2023) 0.08 
    0.08084841 = product of:
  0.16169682 = sum of:
    0.16169682 = sum of:
      0.09125608 = weight(_text_:f in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09125608 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.4403713 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
      0.07044074 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07044074 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2023, H.1, S.22-25
  2. Rieger, F.: Lügende Computer (2023) 0.06 
    0.06467873 = product of:
  0.12935746 = sum of:
    0.12935746 = sum of:
      0.073004864 = weight(_text_:f in 912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073004864 = score(doc=912,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.35229704 = fieldWeight in 912, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=912)
      0.05635259 = weight(_text_:22 in 912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05635259 = score(doc=912,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 912, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=912)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16. 3.2023 19:22:55
  3. Corbara, S.; Moreo, A.; Sebastiani, F.: Syllabic quantity patterns as rhythmic features for Latin authorship attribution (2023) 0.05 
    0.052701503 = sum of:
  0.025324676 = product of:
    0.101298705 = sum of:
      0.101298705 = weight(_text_:authors in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101298705 = score(doc=846,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 846, 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=846)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027376825 = product of:
    0.05475365 = sum of:
      0.05475365 = weight(_text_:f in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05475365 = score(doc=846,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 846, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=846)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    It is well known that, within the Latin production of written text, peculiar metric schemes were followed not only in poetic compositions, but also in many prose works. Such metric patterns were based on so-called syllabic quantity, that is, on the length of the involved syllables, and there is substantial evidence suggesting that certain authors had a preference for certain metric patterns over others. In this research we investigate the possibility to employ syllabic quantity as a base for deriving rhythmic features for the task of computational authorship attribution of Latin prose texts. We test the impact of these features on the authorship attribution task when combined with other topic-agnostic features. Our experiments, carried out on three different datasets using support vector machines (SVMs) show that rhythmic features based on syllabic quantity are beneficial in discriminating among Latin prose authors.
  4. Rodriguez-Esteban, R.; Vishnyakova, D.; Rinaldi, F.: Revisiting the decay of scientific email addresses (2022) 0.05 
    0.052659437 = sum of:
  0.029845417 = product of:
    0.119381666 = sum of:
      0.119381666 = weight(_text_:authors in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.119381666 = score(doc=449,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02281402 = product of:
    0.04562804 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=449,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Email is the primary method of communication with authors of scientific publications. This study sought to measure the reliability, over time, of contact email addresses from biomedical publications, particularly depending on email type. Emails were written to randomly selected email addresses from publications in MEDLINE, and email bounce rates were modeled probabilistically. The use of personal email addresses was quantified and compared to the use of other types of email addresses. Eighteen percent of authors' contact email addresses in MEDLINE were estimated to be invalid. A steadily growing share of email addresses was personal: 32% of all new email addresses in MEDLINE in 2018 were of this kind. These email addresses were less likely to be invalid than email addresses from other types of providers. While the percentage of invalid email addresses was significant, it was lower than previously estimated. Personal email addresses are taking an increasingly more important role by supplying more reliable email addresses to scientists. To mitigate the problem of invalid email addresses, institutions should provide email forwarding, scientific directories should offer the possibility of contacting authors, or scientific authors should use more stable email addresses.
  5. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.05 
    0.05214849 = sum of:
  0.031016268 = product of:
    0.12406507 = sum of:
      0.12406507 = weight(_text_:authors in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12406507 = score(doc=886,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021132221 = product of:
    0.042264443 = sum of:
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:53:32
  6. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.05 
    0.046456896 = sum of:
  0.025324676 = product of:
    0.101298705 = sum of:
      0.101298705 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101298705 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021132221 = product of:
    0.042264443 = sum of:
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:14
  7. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.05 
    0.045546047 = sum of:
  0.020891791 = product of:
    0.083567165 = sum of:
      0.083567165 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083567165 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024654258 = product of:
    0.049308516 = sum of:
      0.049308516 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049308516 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  8. Hottenrott, H.; Rose, M.E.; Lawson, C.: ¬The rise of multiple institutional affiliations in academia (2021) 0.04 
    0.043457076 = sum of:
  0.025846891 = product of:
    0.103387564 = sum of:
      0.103387564 = weight(_text_:authors in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103387564 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017610185 = product of:
    0.03522037 = sum of:
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.
  9. Yang, F.; Zhang, X.: Focal fields in literature on the information divide : the USA, China, UK and India (2020) 0.04 
    0.040424205 = product of:
  0.08084841 = sum of:
    0.08084841 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 2.2020 18:22:13
  10. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.04 
    0.040424205 = product of:
  0.08084841 = sum of:
    0.08084841 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
  11. Luo, L.; Ju, J.; Li, Y.-F.; Haffari, G.; Xiong, B.; Pan, S.: ChatRule: mining logical rules with large language models for knowledge graph reasoning (2023) 0.04 
    0.040424205 = product of:
  0.08084841 = sum of:
    0.08084841 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    23.11.2023 19:07:22
  12. Guo, T.; Bai, X.; Zhen, S.; Abid, S.; Xia, F.: Lost at starting line : predicting maladaptation of university freshmen based on educational big data (2023) 0.04 
    0.040424205 = product of:
  0.08084841 = sum of:
    0.08084841 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1194, 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=1194)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27.12.2022 18:34:22
  13. Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020) 0.04 
    0.03903947 = sum of:
  0.01790725 = product of:
    0.071629 = sum of:
      0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071629 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021132221 = product of:
    0.042264443 = sum of:
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper contains a report of two interdependent knowledge organization (KO) projects for an LGBT2QIA+ library. The authors, in the context of volunteer library work for an independent library, redesigned the classification system and subject cataloguing guidelines to centre LGBT2QIA+ subjects. We discuss the priorities of creating and maintaining knowledge organization systems for a historically marginalized community and address the challenge that queer subjectivity poses to the goals of KO. The classification system features a focus on identity and physically reorganizes the library space in a way that accounts for the multiple and overlapping labels that constitute the currently articulated boundaries of this community. The subject heading system focuses on making visible topics and elements of identity made invisible by universal systems and by the newly implemented classification system. We discuss how this project may inform KO for other marginalized subjects, particularly through process and documentation that prioritizes transparency and the acceptance of an unfinished endpoint for queer KO.
    Date
    6.10.2020 21:22:33
  14. Cooke, N.A.; Kitzie, V.L.: Outsiders-within-Library and Information Science : reprioritizing the marginalized in critical sociocultural work (2021) 0.04 
    0.03903947 = sum of:
  0.01790725 = product of:
    0.071629 = sum of:
      0.071629 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071629 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 351, 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=351)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021132221 = product of:
    0.042264443 = sum of:
      0.042264443 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042264443 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 351, 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=351)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    While there are calls for new paradigms within the profession, there are also existing subgenres that fit this bill if they would be fully acknowledged. This essay argues that underrepresented and otherwise marginalized scholars have already produced significant work within social, cultural, and community-oriented paradigms; social justice and advocacy; and, diversity, equity, and inclusion. This work has not been sufficiently valued or promoted. Furthermore, the surrounding structural conditions have resulted in the dismissal, violently reviewed and rejected, and erased work of underrepresented scholars, and the stigmatization and delegitimization of their work. These scholars are "outsiders-within-LIS." By identifying the outsiders-within-LIS through the frame of standpoint theories, the authors are suggesting that a new paradigm does not need to be created; rather, an existing paradigm needs to be recognized and reprioritized. This reprioritized paradigm of critical sociocultural work has and will continue to creatively enrich and expand the field and decolonize LIS curricula.
    Date
    18. 9.2021 13:22:27
  15. Baroncini, S.; Sartini, B.; Erp, M. Van; Tomasi, F.; Gangemi, A.: Is dc:subject enough? : A landscape on iconography and iconology statements of knowledge graphs in the semantic web (2023) 0.04 
    0.03892873 = sum of:
  0.020677513 = product of:
    0.08271005 = sum of:
      0.08271005 = weight(_text_:authors in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08271005 = score(doc=1030,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1030, 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=1030)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018251216 = product of:
    0.036502432 = sum of:
      0.036502432 = weight(_text_:f in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036502432 = score(doc=1030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.17614852 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects. Design/methodology/approach This study's analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians' theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures' suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness. Findings This study's results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity. Originality/value The main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study's results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.
  16. Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023) 0.04 
    0.03871408 = sum of:
  0.021103898 = product of:
    0.08441559 = sum of:
      0.08441559 = weight(_text_:authors in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08441559 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017610185 = product of:
    0.03522037 = sum of:
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, we present a method to automatically build large labeled datasets for the author ambiguity problem in the academic world by leveraging the authoritative academic resources, ORCID and DOI. Using the method, we built LAGOS-AND, two large, gold-standard sub-datasets for author name disambiguation (AND), of which LAGOS-AND-BLOCK is created for clustering-based AND research and LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE is created for classification-based AND research. Our LAGOS-AND datasets are substantially different from the existing ones. The initial versions of the datasets (v1.0, released in February 2021) include 7.5 M citations authored by 798 K unique authors (LAGOS-AND-BLOCK) and close to 1 M instances (LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE). And both datasets show close similarities to the whole Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) across validations of six facets. In building the datasets, we reveal the variation degrees of last names in three literature databases, PubMed, MAG, and Semantic Scholar, by comparing author names hosted to the authors' official last names shown on the ORCID pages. Furthermore, we evaluate several baseline disambiguation methods as well as the MAG's author IDs system on our datasets, and the evaluation helps identify several interesting findings. We hope the datasets and findings will bring new insights for future studies. The code and datasets are publicly available.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:40:36
  17. Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023) 0.04 
    0.03871408 = sum of:
  0.021103898 = product of:
    0.08441559 = sum of:
      0.08441559 = weight(_text_:authors in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08441559 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017610185 = product of:
    0.03522037 = sum of:
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.
    Date
    22. 4.2023 19:27:56
  18. Nori, R.: Web searching and navigation : age, intelligence, and familiarity (2020) 0.04 
    0.03773673 = sum of:
  0.014922708 = product of:
    0.059690833 = sum of:
      0.059690833 = weight(_text_:authors in 5945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059690833 = score(doc=5945,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5945, 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=5945)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02281402 = product of:
    0.04562804 = sum of:
      0.04562804 = weight(_text_:f in 5945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04562804 = score(doc=5945,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20722532 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 5945, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5945)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In using the Internet to solve everyday problems, older adults tend to find fewer correct answers compared to younger adults. Some authors have argued that these differences could be explained by age-related decline. The present study aimed to analyze the relationship between web-searching navigation and users' age, considering the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and frequency of Internet and personal computer use. The intent was to identify differences due to age and not to other variables (that is, cognitive decline, expertise with the tool). Eighteen students (18-30?years) and 18 older adults (60-75?years) took part in the experiment. Inclusion criteria were the frequent use of computers and a web-searching activity; the older adults performed the Mini-Mental State Examination to exclude cognitive impairment. Participants were requested to perform the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2nd ed. to measure their IQ level, and nine everyday web-searching tasks of differing complexity. The results showed that older participants spent more time on solving tasks than younger participants, but with the same accuracy as young people. Furthermore, nonverbal IQ improved performance in terms of time among the older participants. Age did not influence web-searching behavior in users with normal expertise and intelligence.
    Editor
    Giusberti, F.
  19. Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M.: Participatory design for ontologies : a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas (2020) 0.03 
    0.03476566 = sum of:
  0.020677513 = product of:
    0.08271005 = sum of:
      0.08271005 = weight(_text_:authors in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08271005 = score(doc=179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014088147 = product of:
    0.028176295 = sum of:
      0.028176295 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028176295 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Bergman, O.; Israeli, T.; Whittaker, S.: Factors hindering shared files retrieval (2020) 0.03 
    0.032532893 = sum of:
  0.014922708 = product of:
    0.059690833 = sum of:
      0.059690833 = weight(_text_:authors in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059690833 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23701768 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017610185 = product of:
    0.03522037 = sum of:
      0.03522037 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03522037 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1820639 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051991083 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose Personal information management (PIM) is an activity in which people store information items in order to retrieve them later. The purpose of this paper is to test and quantify the effect of factors related to collection size, file properties and workload on file retrieval success and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 289 participants retrieved 1,557 of their shared files in a naturalistic setting. The study used specially developed software designed to collect shared files' names and present them as targets for the retrieval task. The dependent variables were retrieval success, retrieval time and misstep/s. Findings Various factors compromise shared files retrieval including: collection size (large number of files), file properties (multiple versions, size of team sharing the file, time since most recent retrieval and folder depth) and workload (daily e-mails sent and received). The authors discuss theoretical reasons for these negative effects and suggest possible ways to overcome them. Originality/value Retrieval is the main reason people manage personal information. It is essential for retrieval to be successful and efficient, as information cannot be used unless it can be re-accessed. Prior PIM research has assumed that factors related to collection size, file properties and workload affect file retrieval. However, this is the first study to systematically quantify the negative effects of these factors. As each of these factors is expected to be exacerbated in the future, this study is a necessary first step toward addressing these problems.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 150
  • d 49
  • m 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 186
  • el 34
  • m 8
  • p 2
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications