Search (827 results, page 42 of 42)

0.0011207203 = product of:
  0.008965762 = sum of:
    0.008965762 = product of:
      0.026897287 = sum of:
        0.026897287 = weight(_text_:29 in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026897287 = score(doc=5076,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13841279 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039347667 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

16. 3.2019 17:29:12

0.0011106387 = product of:
  0.00888511 = sum of:
    0.00888511 = product of:
      0.02665533 = sum of:
        0.02665533 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02665533 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13778883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039347667 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.0011106387 = product of:
  0.00888511 = sum of:
    0.00888511 = product of:
      0.02665533 = sum of:
        0.02665533 = weight(_text_:22 in 3011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02665533 = score(doc=3011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13778883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039347667 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3011, 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=3011)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:05:56

0.0011106387 = product of:
  0.00888511 = sum of:
    0.00888511 = product of:
      0.02665533 = sum of:
        0.02665533 = weight(_text_:22 in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02665533 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13778883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039347667 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 34, 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=34)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

12.11.2020 13:22:09

8.9657627E-4 = product of:
  0.00717261 = sum of:
    0.00717261 = product of:
      0.02151783 = sum of:
        0.02151783 = weight(_text_:29 in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02151783 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13841279 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039347667 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Gaining insight from research information (CRIS2002): Proceedings of the 6th International Conference an Current Research Information Systems, University of Kassel, August 29 - 31, 2002. Eds: W. Adamczak u. A. Nase

8.88511E-4 = product of:
  0.007108088 = sum of:
    0.007108088 = product of:
      0.021324264 = sum of:
        0.021324264 = weight(_text_:22 in 2010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021324264 = score(doc=2010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13778883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039347667 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2010, 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=2010)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Wikipedia (the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit) is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this article argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., Web sites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does. Somebody who reads Wikipedia is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom, says Mr. McHenry, Britannica's former editor. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all. The Economist (Vol. 379, April 22, 2006, pp. 14-15)

4.4828813E-4 = product of:
  0.003586305 = sum of:
    0.003586305 = product of:
      0.010758915 = sum of:
        0.010758915 = weight(_text_:29 in 3993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010758915 = score(doc=3993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13841279 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039347667 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 3993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3993)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.11, S.1237-1238 (E. Yakel): "This book provides the profession with a cogent, thorough, and thoughtful introduction to digital reference. Janes not only provides the breadth of coverage expected in an introduction, but also depth into this important topic. Janes' approach is managerial or administrative, providing guidelines for reference work that can be applied in different settings. Janes creates a decision-making framework to help reference librarians make decisions concerning how, to what extent, and in what cases digital reference services will be delivered. In this way, Janes avoids dictating a "one-size-fits-all" model. This approach is the major strength of the book. Library administrators and heads of reference services will find the administrative approach welcome by helping them think through which digital reference policies and methods will best target core constituencies and their institutional environments. However, the book deserves a broader audience as professors will find that the book fits nicely in a general reference course. For all readers, the book is readable and engaging and also challenging and questioning. The book begins with a history of reference work, nicely positioning digital reference in this tradition and noting the changes wrought by the digital age. By doing this, the author establishes both continuity and change in reference work as well as the values surrounding this activity. These values are largely those from the library community and Support people's access to information as well as activities that support the use of information. Janes closes this chapter by noting that the continuing changes in demographics, technology, and connectivity will impact reference work in ways that are not yet imaginable. This introduction sets the tone for the rest of the book. Janes defines digital reference service as "the use of digital technologies and resources to provide direct, professional assistance to people who are seeking information, wherever and whenever they need it" (p. 29). This definition covers a lot of ground. Examples include everything from a public library answering email queries to commercial ask-an-expert services. While the primary audience is librarians, Janes continually reminds readers that many others perform reference activities an the World Wide Web. Furthermore, he cautions readers that there are larger forces shaping this activity in the world that need to acknowledged. In building a framework for decision-making, Janes outlines the types of digital reference service. This discussion covers the communieations modes, such as e-mail, chat, Web forms, etc. It also analyzes the modalities by which reference service is delivered: synchronous/ asynchronous. Using these two dimensions (communication method and synchronous/asynchronous), Janes presents the variety of contexts in which digital reference can take place and then outlines the strengths and weaknesses of each of these. This translates into a decision-making framework by which readers analyze their particular setting and then select the modes and modalities that world be most effective. This is a powerful device and demonstrates the many options (and perhaps also the obstacles) for providing digital reference service.