Search (296 results, page 1 of 15)

0.08762424 = sum of:
  0.014982744 = product of:
    0.059930976 = sum of:
      0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059930976 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037279427 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = queryNorm
        0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035362065 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.08762424 = sum of:
  0.014982744 = product of:
    0.059930976 = sum of:
      0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059930976 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037279427 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = queryNorm
        0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035362065 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052200247 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.084548526 = sum of:
  0.06218087 = product of:
    0.24872348 = sum of:
      0.24872348 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24872348 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44255427 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022367656 = product of:
    0.044735312 = sum of:
      0.044735312 = weight(_text_:p in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044735312 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

Type

p

0.058113195 = product of:
  0.11622639 = sum of:
    0.11622639 = sum of:
      0.059647083 = weight(_text_:p in 223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059647083 = score(doc=223,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 223, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=223)
      0.056579303 = weight(_text_:22 in 223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056579303 = score(doc=223,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 223, 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=223)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:38:21

0.058113195 = product of:
  0.11622639 = sum of:
    0.11622639 = sum of:
      0.059647083 = weight(_text_:p in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059647083 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.056579303 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056579303 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 486, 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=486)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2022 14:01:14

0.055759918 = sum of:
  0.029664319 = product of:
    0.118657276 = sum of:
      0.118657276 = weight(_text_:authors in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118657276 = score(doc=724,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026095599 = product of:
    0.052191198 = sum of:
      0.052191198 = weight(_text_:p in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052191198 = score(doc=724,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Wikidata gadget, CCLitBox, for the automated classification of literary authors and works by a faceted classification and using Linked Open Data (LOD) is presented. The tool reproduces the classification algorithm of class O Literature of the Colon Classification and uses data freely available in Wikidata to create Colon Classification class numbers. CCLitBox is totally free and enables any user to classify literary authors and their works; it is easily accessible to everybody; it uses LOD from Wikidata but missing data for classification can be freely added if necessary; it is readymade for any cooperative and networked project.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.8, p.835-852

0.055759918 = sum of:
  0.029664319 = product of:
    0.118657276 = sum of:
      0.118657276 = weight(_text_:authors in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118657276 = score(doc=729,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026095599 = product of:
    0.052191198 = sum of:
      0.052191198 = weight(_text_:p in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052191198 = score(doc=729,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study uses the recently released Cataloguing Code of Ethics to evaluate a project which explored how to ethically, efficiently, and accurately add demographic terms for African-American authors to catalog records. By reviewing the project through the lens of these principles the authors were able to examine how their practice was ethical in some ways but could have been improved in others. This helped them identify areas of potential improvement in their current and future research and practice and explore ethical difficulties in cataloging resources with records that are used globally, especially in a linked data environment.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.1, p.112-137

0.055759918 = sum of:
  0.029664319 = product of:
    0.118657276 = sum of:
      0.118657276 = weight(_text_:authors in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118657276 = score(doc=1142,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026095599 = product of:
    0.052191198 = sum of:
      0.052191198 = weight(_text_:p in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052191198 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article outlines the early process and reflects on the experiences of the authors as members of a team creating a Hawaiian knowledge organization system. The authors put forward shared understanding as a process, not a goal, and a way to reimagine and elucidate the process of knowledge organization work. As the project has progressed, team members have embraced their work as not solely knowledge creation and organization, but also communication. The group has identified a metaphorical frame, community agreements, knowledge graphs, and authority record templates as communication tools that are critical to creating a shared space to discuss meaning.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.6-7, p.583-598

0.05379593 = sum of:
  0.023972388 = product of:
    0.09588955 = sum of:
      0.09588955 = weight(_text_:authors in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09588955 = score(doc=722,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.029823542 = product of:
    0.059647083 = sum of:
      0.059647083 = weight(_text_:p in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059647083 = score(doc=722,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides a conclusion to the special issue on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automated Processes for Subject Access. The authors who contributed to this special issue have provoked interesting questions as well as bringing attention to important issues. This concluding article looks at common themes and highlights some of the questions raised.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.8, p.868-874

0.052358285 = sum of:
  0.031141048 = product of:
    0.12456419 = sum of:
      0.12456419 = weight(_text_:authors in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12456419 = score(doc=886,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.021217238 = product of:
    0.042434476 = sum of:
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.048605204 = sum of:
  0.029965488 = product of:
    0.11986195 = sum of:
      0.11986195 = weight(_text_:authors in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11986195 = score(doc=917,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.

0.047071442 = sum of:
  0.020975841 = product of:
    0.083903365 = sum of:
      0.083903365 = weight(_text_:authors in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083903365 = score(doc=1139,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1139, 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=1139)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026095599 = product of:
    0.052191198 = sum of:
      0.052191198 = weight(_text_:p in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052191198 = score(doc=1139,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In light of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and NLP (Natural language processing) technologies, this article examines the feasibility of using AI/NLP models to enhance the subject indexing of digital resources. While BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) models are widely used in scholarly communities, the authors assess whether BERT models can be used in machine-assisted indexing in the Project Gutenberg collection, through suggesting Library of Congress subject headings filtered by certain Library of Congress Classification subclass labels. The findings of this study are informative for further research on BERT models to assist with automatic subject indexing for digital library collections.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.8, p.807-835

0.047071442 = sum of:
  0.020975841 = product of:
    0.083903365 = sum of:
      0.083903365 = weight(_text_:authors in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083903365 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1141, 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=1141)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026095599 = product of:
    0.052191198 = sum of:
      0.052191198 = weight(_text_:p in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052191198 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic records can include information from controlled vocabularies to capture identities about individuals, especially about authors or intended audiences; personal name authority records can also contain information about identity. Employing a systematic analysis of the overlap of the Homosaurus, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT), this article explores the extent to which LGBTQ+ identities are represented in the three vocabularies. Despite LCSH's long, iterative history of development and the faceted, post-coordinate nature of LCDGT, neither vocabulary was found to be adequate in covering the complex, LGBTQ+ identities represented in the Homosaurus.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.6-7, p.490-513

0.046643797 = sum of:
  0.02542656 = product of:
    0.10170624 = sum of:
      0.10170624 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10170624 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.021217238 = product of:
    0.042434476 = sum of:
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.045729287 = sum of:
  0.020975841 = product of:
    0.083903365 = sum of:
      0.083903365 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083903365 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.024753446 = product of:
    0.04950689 = sum of:
      0.04950689 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04950689 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.04459059 = sum of:
  0.025950875 = product of:
    0.1038035 = sum of:
      0.1038035 = weight(_text_:authors in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1038035 = score(doc=760,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems, even traditional ones, such as the Universal Decimal Classification, have been studied to improve the retrieval of information online, although the potential of using knowledge structures in the user interface has not yet been widespread. Objective: This study presents a mapping of scientific production on information retrieval methodologies, which make use of the Universal Decimal Classification. Methodology: Systematic Literature Review, conducted in two stages, with a selection of 44 publications, resulting in the time interval from 1964 to 2017, whose categories analyzed were: most productive authors, languages of publications, types of document, year of publication, most cited work, major impact journal, and thematic categories covered in the publications. Results: A total of nine more productive authors and co-authors were found; predominance of the English language (42 publications); works published in the format of journal articles (33); and highlight to the year 2007 (eight publications). In addition, it was identified that the most cited work was by Mcilwaine (1997), with 61 citations, and the journal Extensions & Corrections to the UDC was the one with the largest number of publications, in addition to the incidence of the theme Universal Automation linked to a thesaurus for information retrieval, present in 19 works. Conclusions: Shortage of studies that explore the potential of the Decimal Classification, especially in Brazilian literature, which highlights the need for further study on the topic, involving research at the national and international levels.

Source

Informação & Informação. 26(2021) no.1, p.550-573

0.043631908 = sum of:
  0.025950875 = product of:
    0.1038035 = sum of:
      0.1038035 = weight(_text_:authors in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1038035 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.017681032 = product of:
    0.035362065 = sum of:
      0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035362065 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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.

0.039828513 = sum of:
  0.0211888 = product of:
    0.0847552 = sum of:
      0.0847552 = weight(_text_:authors in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0847552 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Few studies have investigated how search behavior affects complex writing tasks. We analyze a dataset of 150 long essays whose authors searched the ClueWeb09 corpus for source material, while all querying, clicking, and writing activity was meticulously recorded. We model the effect of search and writing behavior on essay quality using path analysis. Since the boil-down and build-up writing strategies identified in previous research have been found to affect search behavior, we model each writing strategy separately. Our analysis shows that the search process contributes significantly to essay quality through both direct and mediated effects, while the author's writing strategy moderates this relationship. Our models explain 25-35% of the variation in essay quality through rather simple search and writing process characteristics alone, a fact that has implications on how search engines could personalize result pages for writing tasks. Authors' writing strategies and associated searching patterns differ, producing differences in essay quality. In a nutshell: essay quality improves if search and writing strategies harmonize-build-up writers benefit from focused, in-depth querying, while boil-down writers fare better with a broader and shallower querying strategy.

0.03919653 = sum of:
  0.017979292 = product of:
    0.07191717 = sum of:
      0.07191717 = weight(_text_:authors in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07191717 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.021217238 = product of:
    0.042434476 = sum of:
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.03919653 = sum of:
  0.017979292 = product of:
    0.07191717 = sum of:
      0.07191717 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07191717 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)
  0.021217238 = product of:
    0.042434476 = sum of:
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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