-
Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023)
0.11
0.111355156 = sum of:
0.025439564 = product of:
0.10175826 = sum of:
0.10175826 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10175826 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.085915595 = sum of:
0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043459415 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
- 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
-
Engel, B.: Corona-Gesundheitszertifikat als Exitstrategie (2020)
0.07
0.07159633 = product of:
0.14319266 = sum of:
0.14319266 = sum of:
0.07243236 = weight(_text_:b in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07243236 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
0.0707603 = weight(_text_:22 in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0707603 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5906, 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=5906)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4. 5.2020 17:22:28
-
Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023)
0.05
0.052385066 = sum of:
0.031156976 = product of:
0.1246279 = sum of:
0.1246279 = weight(_text_:authors in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1246279 = score(doc=886,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.02122809 = product of:
0.04245618 = sum of:
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Abrahamse, B.: Corporate bodies : access points and authority control (2021)
0.05
0.046337895 = sum of:
0.020986568 = product of:
0.08394627 = sum of:
0.08394627 = weight(_text_:authors in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08394627 = score(doc=698,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 698, 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=698)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.025351325 = product of:
0.05070265 = sum of:
0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05070265 = score(doc=698,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The concept of authorship is central to how libraries organize their collections. But libraries do not only collect resources created by individuals, they also collect documents issued by organizations. Library catalogers use the concept of a "corporate body" to treat organizations as authors for the purpose of making their documents discoverable to users. This essay looks at the key features of establishing authorized access points (AAPs) and applying authority control for corporate bodies. It examines how practices with regard to corporate bodies have changed over time and considers the changes catalogers might expect to see in the future.
-
Dobreski, B.; Snow, K.; Moulaison-Sandy, H.: On overlap and otherness : a comparison of three vocabularies' approaches to LGBTQ+ identity (2022)
0.05
0.046337895 = sum of:
0.020986568 = product of:
0.08394627 = sum of:
0.08394627 = weight(_text_:authors in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08394627 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.025351325 = product of:
0.05070265 = sum of:
0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05070265 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, 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.
-
Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022)
0.05
0.045752674 = sum of:
0.020986568 = product of:
0.08394627 = sum of:
0.08394627 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08394627 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.024766104 = product of:
0.04953221 = sum of:
0.04953221 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04953221 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Hottenrott, H.; Rose, M.E.; Lawson, C.: ¬The rise of multiple institutional affiliations in academia (2021)
0.04
0.043654226 = sum of:
0.025964148 = product of:
0.10385659 = sum of:
0.10385659 = weight(_text_:authors in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10385659 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.017690076 = product of:
0.03538015 = sum of:
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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.
-
Lee, D.J.; Stvilia, B.; Ha, S.; Hahn, D.: ¬The structure and priorities of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities : a case of institutional research information management system (2023)
0.04
0.04329878 = product of:
0.08659756 = sum of:
0.08659756 = sum of:
0.051217414 = weight(_text_:b in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051217414 = score(doc=884,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 884, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=884)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=884,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 884, 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=884)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Research information management systems (RIMS) have become critical components of information technology infrastructure on university campuses. They are used not just for sharing and promoting faculty research, but also for conducting faculty evaluation and development, facilitating research collaborations, identifying mentors for student projects, and expert consultants for local businesses. This study is one of the first empirical investigations of the structure of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities in a nonmandatory institutional RIMS. By analyzing the RIMS's log data, we identified 11 tasks researchers performed when updating their profiles. These tasks were further grouped into three activities: (a) adding publication, (b) enhancing researcher identity, and (c) improving research discoverability. In addition, we found that junior researchers and female researchers were more engaged in maintaining their RIMS profiles than senior researchers and male researchers. The results provide insights for designing profile maintenance action templates for institutional RIMS that are tailored to researchers' characteristics and help enhance researchers' engagement in the curation of their research information. This also suggests that female and junior researchers can serve as early adopters of institutional RIMS.
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:43:02
-
Ma, L.: Information, platformized (2023)
0.04
0.042957798 = product of:
0.085915595 = sum of:
0.085915595 = sum of:
0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043459415 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 888, 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=888)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scholarly publications are often regarded as "information" by default. They are collected, organized, preserved, and made accessible as knowledge records. However, the instances of article retraction, misconduct and malpractices of researchers and the replication crisis have raised concerns about the informativeness and evidential qualities of information. Among many factors, knowledge production has moved away from "normal science" under the systemic influences of platformization involving the datafication and commodification of scholarly articles, research profiles and research activities. This article aims to understand the platformization of information by examining how research practices and knowledge production are steered by market and platform mechanisms in four ways: (a) ownership of information; (b) metrics for sale; (c) relevance by metrics, and (d) market-based competition. In conclusion, the article argues that information is platformized when platforms hold the dominating power in determining what kinds of information can be disseminated and rewarded and when informativeness is decoupled from the normative agreement or consensus co-constructed and co-determined in an open and public discourse.
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 19:01:47
-
Vakkari, P.; Völske, M.; Potthast, M.; Hagen, M.; Stein, B.: Predicting essay quality from search and writing behavior (2021)
0.04
0.03930773 = sum of:
0.021199638 = product of:
0.08479855 = sum of:
0.08479855 = weight(_text_:authors in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08479855 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.01810809 = product of:
0.03621618 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, 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.
-
Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020)
0.04
0.039216578 = sum of:
0.017988488 = product of:
0.07195395 = sum of:
0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07195395 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.02122809 = product of:
0.04245618 = sum of:
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Cooke, N.A.; Kitzie, V.L.: Outsiders-within-Library and Information Science : reprioritizing the marginalized in critical sociocultural work (2021)
0.04
0.039216578 = sum of:
0.017988488 = product of:
0.07195395 = sum of:
0.07195395 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07195395 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.02122809 = product of:
0.04245618 = sum of:
0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04245618 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023)
0.04
0.038889714 = sum of:
0.021199638 = product of:
0.08479855 = sum of:
0.08479855 = weight(_text_:authors in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08479855 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.017690076 = product of:
0.03538015 = sum of:
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023)
0.04
0.038889714 = sum of:
0.021199638 = product of:
0.08479855 = sum of:
0.08479855 = weight(_text_:authors in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08479855 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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)
0.017690076 = product of:
0.03538015 = sum of:
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Haimson, O.L.; Carter, A.J.; Corvite, S.; Wheeler, B.; Wang, L.; Liu, T.; Lige, A.: ¬The major life events taxonomy : social readjustment, social media information sharing, and online network separation during times of life transition (2021)
0.04
0.035798166 = product of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 263, 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=263)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 6.2021 19:22:47
-
Jörs, B.: ¬Ein kleines Fach zwischen "Daten" und "Wissen" II : Anmerkungen zum (virtuellen) "16th International Symposium of Information Science" (ISI 2021", Regensburg) (2021)
0.04
0.035798166 = product of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.
-
Wiesenmüller, H.: Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen : Überlegungen zur Qualität (2021)
0.04
0.035798166 = product of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 374, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=374)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 374, 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=374)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Beschäftigt man sich mit Inhaltserschließung, so sind zunächst zwei Dimensionen zu unterscheiden - die Wissensorganisationssysteme selbst (z. B. Normdateien, Thesauri, Schlagwortsprachen, Klassifikationen und Ontologien) und die Metadaten für Dokumente, die mit diesen Wissensorganisationssystemen erschlossen sind. Beides steht in einer Wechselwirkung zueinander: Die Wissensorganisationssysteme sind die Werkzeuge für die Erschließungsarbeit und bilden die Grundlage für die Erstellung konkreter Erschließungsmetadaten. Die praktische Anwendung der Wissensorganisationssysteme in der Erschließung wiederum ist die Basis für deren Pflege und Weiterentwicklung. Zugleich haben Wissensorganisationssysteme auch einen Eigenwert unabhängig von den Erschließungsmetadaten für einzelne Dokumente, indem sie bestimmte Bereiche von Welt- oder Fachwissen modellartig abbilden. Will man nun Aussagen über die Qualität von inhaltlicher Erschließung treffen, so genügt es nicht, den Input - also die Wissensorganisationssysteme und die damit generierten Metadaten - zu betrachten. Man muss auch den Output betrachten, also das, was die Recherchewerkzeuge daraus machen und was folglich bei den Nutzer:innen konkret ankommt. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden Überlegungen zur Qualität von Recherchewerkzeugen in diesem Bereich angestellt - gewissermaßen als Fortsetzung und Vertiefung der dazu im Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) gegebenen Hinweise. Im Zentrum steht die verbale Erschließung nach den Regeln für die Schlagwortkatalogisierung (RSWK), wie sie sich in Bibliothekskatalogen manifestiert - gleich, ob es sich dabei um herkömmliche Kataloge oder um Resource-Discovery-Systeme (RDS) handelt.
- Date
- 24. 9.2021 12:22:02
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.04
0.035798166 = product of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
-
Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022)
0.04
0.035798166 = product of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18.11.2023 13:47:22
-
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
0.035798166 = product of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.07159633 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03538015 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = 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
