Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informationsdienstleistungen"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Rosenbaum, H.; Shachaf, P.: ¬A structuration approach to online communities of practice : the case of Q&A communities (2010) 0.08 
    0.076880954 = product of:
  0.15376191 = sum of:
    0.15376191 = product of:
      0.30752382 = sum of:
        0.30752382 = weight(_text_:q in 3916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30752382 = score(doc=3916,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            1.0634888 = fieldWeight in 3916, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article describes an approach based on structuration theory (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Orlikowski, 1992, 2000) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) that can be used to guide investigation into the dynamics of online question and answer (Q&A) communities. This approach is useful because most research on Q&A sites has focused attention on information retrieval, information-seeking behavior, and information intermediation and has assumed uncritically that the online Q&A community plays an important role in these domains of study. Assuming instead that research on online communities should take into account social, technical, and contextual factors (Kling, Rosenbaum, & Sawyer, 2005), the utility of this approach is demonstrated with an analysis of three online Q&A communities seen as communities of practice. This article makes a theoretical contribution to the study of online Q&A communities and, more generally, to the domain of social reference.
  2. Shah, C.; Kitzie, V.: Social Q&A and virtual reference : comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users (2012) 0.06 
    0.05848532 = product of:
  0.11697064 = sum of:
    0.11697064 = product of:
      0.23394129 = sum of:
        0.23394129 = weight(_text_:q in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23394129 = score(doc=457,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.8090234 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Online question-answering (Q&A) services are becoming increasingly popular among information seekers. We divide them into two categories, social Q&A (SQA) and virtual reference (VR), and examine how experts (librarians) and end users (students) evaluate information within both categories. To accomplish this, we first performed an extensive literature review and compiled a list of the aspects found to contribute to a "good" answer. These aspects were divided among three high-level concepts: relevance, quality, and satisfaction. We then interviewed both experts and users, asking them first to reflect on their online Q&A experiences and then comment on our list of aspects. These interviews uncovered two main disparities. One disparity was found between users' expectations with these services and how information was actually delivered among them, and the other disparity between the perceptions of users and experts with regard to the aforementioned three characteristics of relevance, quality, and satisfaction. Using qualitative analyses of both the interviews and relevant literature, we suggest ways to create better hybrid solutions for online Q&A and to bridge the gap between experts' and users' understandings of relevance, quality, and satisfaction, as well as the perceived importance of each in contributing to a good answer.
  3. Lou, J.; Fang, Y.; Lim, K.H.; Peng, J.Z.: Contributing high quantity and quality knowledge to online Q&A communities (2013) 0.05 
    0.052310854 = product of:
  0.10462171 = sum of:
    0.10462171 = product of:
      0.20924342 = sum of:
        0.20924342 = weight(_text_:q in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20924342 = score(doc=615,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigates the motivational factors affecting the quantity and quality of voluntary knowledge contribution in online Q&A communities. Although previous studies focus on knowledge contribution quantity, this study regards quantity and quality as two important, yet distinct, aspects of knowledge contribution. Drawing on self-determination theory, this study proposes that five motivational factors, categorized along the extrinsic-intrinsic spectrum of motivation, have differential effects on knowledge contribution quantity versus quality in the context of online Q&A communities. An online survey with 367 participants was conducted in a leading online Q&A community to test the research model. Results show that rewards in the reputation system, learning, knowledge self-efficacy, and enjoy helping stand out as important motivations. Furthermore, rewards in the reputation system, as a manifestation of the external regulation, is more effective in facilitating the knowledge contribution quantity than quality. Knowledge self-efficacy, as a manifestation of intrinsic motivation, is more strongly related to knowledge contribution quality, whereas the other intrinsic motivation, enjoy helping, is more strongly associated with knowledge contribution quantity. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
  4. Radford, M.L.; Connaway, L.S.; Mikitish, S.; Alpert, M.; Shah, C.; Cooke, N.A.: Shared values, new vision : collaboration and communities of practice in virtual reference and SQA (2017) 0.03 
    0.026155427 = product of:
  0.052310854 = sum of:
    0.052310854 = product of:
      0.10462171 = sum of:
        0.10462171 = weight(_text_:q in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10462171 = score(doc=3352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 3352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This investigation of new approaches to improving collaboration, user/librarian experiences, and sustainability for virtual reference services (VRS) reports findings from a grant project titled "Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites" (Radford, Connaway, & Shah, 2011-2014). In-depth telephone interviews with 50 VRS librarians included questions on collaboration, referral practices, and attitudes toward Social Question and Answer (SQA) services using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). The Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998; Davies, 2005) framework was found to be a useful conceptualization for understanding VRS professionals' approaches to their work. Findings indicate that participants usually refer questions from outside of their area of expertise to other librarians, but occasionally refer them to nonlibrarian experts. These referrals are made possible because participants believe that other VRS librarians are qualified and willing collaborators. Barriers to collaboration include not knowing appropriate librarians/experts for referral, inability to verify credentials, and perceived unwillingness to collaborate. Facilitators to collaboration include knowledge of appropriate collaborators who are qualified and willingness to refer. Answers from SQA services were perceived as less objective and authoritative, but participants were open to collaborating with nonlibrarian experts with confirmation of professional expertise or extensive knowledge.
  5. Zhou, X.; Sun, X.; Wang, Q.; Sharples, S.: ¬A context-based study of serendipity in information research among Chinese scholars (2018) 0.03 
    0.026155427 = product of:
  0.052310854 = sum of:
    0.052310854 = product of:
      0.10462171 = sum of:
        0.10462171 = weight(_text_:q in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10462171 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Ford, N.: Introduction to information behaviour (2015) 0.01 
    0.014954773 = product of:
  0.029909546 = sum of:
    0.029909546 = product of:
      0.05981909 = sum of:
        0.05981909 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05981909 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, 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=3341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2017 16:45:48
  7. Bertram, J.: Stand der unternehmensweiten Suche in österreichischen Großunternehmen (2013) 0.01 
    0.012689547 = product of:
  0.025379093 = sum of:
    0.025379093 = product of:
      0.050758187 = sum of:
        0.050758187 = weight(_text_:22 in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050758187 = score(doc=2658,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Dass eine erfolgreiche Suche nach im Unternehmen vorhandenen Informationen oftmals schwieriger zu bewerkstelligen ist als eine Suche im Internet, wird in der Privatwirtschaft zunehmend als Problem gesehen. Enterprise Search ist eine Strategie, diesem Problem zu begegnen. In einer Studie mit explorativem Charakter wurde der Frage nachgegangen, wie es um den Stand unternehmensweiten Suche in österreichischen Unternehmen bestellt ist. m Rahmen einer Onlinebefragung wurden dazu im März / April 2009 469 Unternehmen befragt. Es beteiligten sich 104 Unternehmen. Das entspricht einem Rücklauf von 22 %. Dieser Beitrag gibt Auskunft über Status quo der unternehmensweiten Informationsorganisation und -suche in Österreich und benennt unternehmens- bzw. personengebundene Faktoren, die darauf Einfluss haben. Im einzelnen werden Ergebnisse zu folgenden Aspekten präsentiert: Regelung der Informationsorganisation; Anreicherung unstrukturierter Informationen mit Metadaten; Probleme bei der Suche nach unternehmensinternen Informationen; täglicher Zeitaufwand für die Suche; vorhandene, wünschenswerte und benötigte Suchfunktionalitäten; Zufriedenheit mit der Suche und der Informationsorganisation Unternehmen.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 19:00:02
  8. Meier, F.: Informationsverhalten in Social Media (2015) 0.01 
    0.011963818 = product of:
  0.023927636 = sum of:
    0.023927636 = product of:
      0.047855273 = sum of:
        0.047855273 = weight(_text_:22 in 1739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047855273 = score(doc=1739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1739, 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=1739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 66(2015) H.1, S.22-28
  9. Bertram, J.: Informationen verzweifelt gesucht : Enterprise Search in österreichischen Großunternehmen (2011) 0.01 
    0.010574621 = product of:
  0.021149242 = sum of:
    0.021149242 = product of:
      0.042298485 = sum of:
        0.042298485 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042298485 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die Arbeit geht dem Status quo der unternehmensweiten Suche in österreichischen Großunternehmen nach und beleuchtet Faktoren, die darauf Einfluss haben. Aus der Analyse des Ist-Zustands wird der Bedarf an Enterprise-Search-Software abgeleitet und es werden Rahmenbedingungen für deren erfolgreiche Einführung skizziert. Die Untersuchung stützt sich auf eine im Jahr 2009 durchgeführte Onlinebefragung von 469 österreichischen Großunternehmen (Rücklauf 22 %) und daran anschließende Leitfadeninterviews mit zwölf Teilnehmern der Onlinebefragung. Der theoretische Teil verortet die Arbeit im Kontext des Informations- und Wissensmanagements. Der Fokus liegt auf dem Ansatz der Enterprise Search, ihrer Abgrenzung gegenüber der Suche im Internet und ihrem Leistungsspektrum. Im empirischen Teil wird zunächst aufgezeigt, wie die Unternehmen ihre Informationen organisieren und welche Probleme dabei auftreten. Es folgt eine Analyse des Status quo der Informati-onssuche im Unternehmen. Abschließend werden Bekanntheit und Einsatz von Enterprise-Search-Software in der Zielgruppe untersucht sowie für die Einführung dieser Software nötige Rahmenbedingungen benannt. Defizite machen die Befragten insbesondere im Hinblick auf die übergreifende Suche im Unternehmen und die Suche nach Kompetenzträgern aus. Hier werden Lücken im Wissensmanagement offenbar. 29 % der Respondenten der Onlinebefragung geben zu-dem an, dass es in ihren Unternehmen gelegentlich bis häufig zu Fehlentscheidungen infolge defizitärer Informationslagen kommt. Enterprise-Search-Software kommt in 17 % der Unternehmen, die sich an der Onlinebefragung beteiligten, zum Einsatz. Die durch Enterprise-Search-Software bewirkten Veränderungen werden grundsätzlich posi-tiv beurteilt. Alles in allem zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass Enterprise-Search-Strategien nur Erfolg haben können, wenn man sie in umfassende Maßnahmen des Informations- und Wissensmanagements einbettet.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 20:40:31
  10. Vlaeminck, S.; Wagner, G.G.: Ergebnisse einer Befragung von wissenschaftlichen Infrastrukturdienstleistern im Bereich der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften : Zur Rolle von Forschungsdatenzentren beim Management von publikationsbezogenen Forschungsdaten (2014) 0.01 
    0.0104683405 = product of:
  0.020936681 = sum of:
    0.020936681 = product of:
      0.041873362 = sum of:
        0.041873362 = weight(_text_:22 in 2543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041873362 = score(doc=2543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2543, 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=2543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die Ergebnisse einer Analyse zusammengefasst, in der untersucht wurde, ob, und wenn ja welche Services für das Management von publikationsbezogenen Forschungsdaten gegenwärtig bei wissenschaftlichen Infrastrukturdienstleistern in den Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften bestehen. Die Analyse wurde Mithilfe von Desktop-Research sowie einer Online-Befragung, an der sich 22 von 46 angeschriebenen Institutionen beteiligten, durchgeführt. Untersucht wurden vor allem deutsche und europäische Forschungsdatenzentren, Bibliotheken und Archive. Insbesondere wurde untersucht, ob diese Organisationen extern erzeugte Forschungsdaten, den dazugehörigen Berechnungscode (Syntax) und ggf. genutzte (selbstgeschriebene) Software grundsätzlich speichern und hosten. Weitere Themenfelder waren Metadatenstandards, Persistente Identifikatoren, Verfügbarkeit von Schnittstellen (APIs) und Unterstützung von semantischen Technologien.
  11. Smith, C.L.; Matteson, M.L.: Information literacy in the age of machines that learn : desiderata for machines that teach (2018) 0.01 
    0.008972864 = product of:
  0.017945727 = sum of:
    0.017945727 = product of:
      0.035891455 = sum of:
        0.035891455 = weight(_text_:22 in 4954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035891455 = score(doc=4954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4954, 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=4954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16. 3.2019 14:33:22
  12. Knoll, A.: Kompetenzprofil von Information Professionals in Unternehmen (2016) 0.01 
    0.008972864 = product of:
  0.017945727 = sum of:
    0.017945727 = product of:
      0.035891455 = sum of:
        0.035891455 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035891455 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 7.2016 16:22:54
  13. Plieninger, J.: Informationskompetenz online vermitteln : eTeaching für OPLs (2011) 0.01 
    0.0084596975 = product of:
  0.016919395 = sum of:
    0.016919395 = product of:
      0.03383879 = sum of:
        0.03383879 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03383879 = score(doc=166,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    29. 5.2012 14:20:22
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
  14. Lercher, A.: Efficiency of scientific communication : a survey of world science (2010) 0.01 
    0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 3997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=3997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3997, 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=3997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this study was to measure the efficiency of the system by which scientists worldwide communicate results to each other, providing one measure of the degree to which the system, including all media, functions well. A randomly selected and representative sample of 246 active research scientists worldwide was surveyed. The main measure was the reported rate of "late finds": scientific literature that would have been useful to scientists' projects if it had been found at the beginning of these projects. The main result was that 46% of the sample reported late finds (±6.25%, p0.05). Among respondents from European Union countries or other countries classified as "high income" by the World Bank, 42% reported late finds. Among respondents from low- and middle-income countries, 56% reported late finds. The 42% rate in high-income countries in 2009 can be compared with results of earlier surveys by Martyn (1964a, b, 1987). These earlier surveys found a rate of 22% late finds in 1963-1964 and a rate of 27% in 1985-1986. Respondents were also queried about search habits, but this study failed to support any explanations for this increase in the rate of late finds. This study also permits a crude estimate of the cost in time and money of the increase in late finds.
  15. Cole, C.; Behesthi, J.; Large, A.; Lamoureux, I.; Abuhimed, D.; AlGhamdi, M.: Seeking information for a middle school history project : the concept of implicit knowledge in the students' transition from Kuhlthau's Stage 3 to Stage 4 (2013) 0.01 
    0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 667, 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=667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:41:17
  16. Bodoff, D.; Raban, D.: Question types and intermediary elicitations (2016) 0.01 
    0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2638, 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=2638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 11:58:25
  17. Chew, S.W.; Khoo, K.S.G.: Comparison of drug information on consumer drug review sites versus authoritative health information websites (2016) 0.01 
    0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2643, 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=2643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 12:24:05
  18. Pontis, S.; Blandford, A.; Greifeneder, E.; Attalla, H.; Neal, D.: Keeping up to date : an academic researcher's information journey (2017) 0.01 
    0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35
  19. Jaskolla, L.; Rugel, M.: Smart questions : steps towards an ontology of questions and answers (2014) 0.01 
    0.0074773864 = product of:
  0.014954773 = sum of:
    0.014954773 = product of:
      0.029909546 = sum of:
        0.029909546 = weight(_text_:22 in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029909546 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3404, 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=3404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    9. 2.2017 19:22:59
  20. Pinto, M.: Assessing disciplinary differences in faculty perceptions of information literacy competencies (2016) 0.01 
    0.005981909 = product of:
  0.011963818 = sum of:
    0.011963818 = product of:
      0.023927636 = sum of:
        0.023927636 = weight(_text_:22 in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023927636 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15461078 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2963, 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=2963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 14
  • d 6

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications