Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032641627 = product of:
  0.065283254 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=5325,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 5325, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5325)
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=5325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5325, 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=5325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Digital archives are the preferred means for open access to research data. They play essential roles in knowledge infrastructures-robust networks of people, artifacts, and institutions-but little is known about how they mediate information exchange between stakeholders. We open the "black box" of data archives by studying DANS, the Data Archiving and Networked Services institute of The Netherlands, which manages 50+ years of data from the social sciences, humanities, and other domains. Our interviews, weblogs, ethnography, and document analyses reveal that a few large contributors provide a steady flow of content, but most are academic researchers who submit data sets infrequently and often restrict access to their files. Consumers are a diverse group that overlaps minimally with contributors. Archivists devote about half their time to aiding contributors with curation processes and half to assisting consumers. Given the diversity and infrequency of usage, human assistance in curation and search remains essential. DANS' knowledge infrastructure encompasses public and private stakeholders who contribute, consume, harvest, and serve their data-many of whom did not exist at the time the DANS collections originated-reinforcing the need for continuous investment in digital data archives as their communities, technologies, and services evolve.

Date

7. 7.2019 11:58:22

0.026113302 = product of:
  0.052226603 = sum of:
    0.039516103 = weight(_text_:services in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039516103 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.22946067 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.0127105005 = product of:
      0.025421001 = sum of:
        0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025421001 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, 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=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

ADEPT is a 5-year project whose goals are to develop, deploy, and evaluate inquiry learning capabilities for the Alexandria Digital Library, an extant digital library of primary sources in geography. We interviewed nine geography faculty members who teach undergraduate courses about their information seeking for research and teaching and their use of information resources in teaching. These data were supplemented by interviews with four faculty members from another ADEPT study about the nature of knowledge in geography. Among our key findings are that geography faculty are more likely to encounter useful teaching resources while seeking research resources than vice versa, although the influence goes in both directions. Their greatest information needs are for research data, maps, and images. They desire better searching by concept or theme, in addition to searching by location and place name. They make extensive use of their own research resources in their teaching. Among the implications for functionality and architecture of geographic digital libraries for educational use are that personal digital libraries are essential, because individual faculty members have personalized approaches to selecting, collecting, and organizing teaching resources. Digital library services for research and teaching should include the ability to import content from common office software and to store content in standard formats that can be exported to other applications. Digital library services can facilitate sharing among faculty but cannot overcome barriers such as intellectual property rights, access to proprietary research data, or the desire of individuals to maintain control over their own resources. Faculty use of primary and secondary resources needs to be better understood if we are to design successful digital libraries for research and teaching.

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22

0.015124108 = product of:
  0.06049643 = sum of:
    0.06049643 = weight(_text_:services in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06049643 = score(doc=100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

When developing university-based research data curation services, libraries face critical decisions around organization and sustainability that can affect dataset producers' satisfaction with these services. We present a study, involving interviews (n = 43) and ethnographic observation, of how two libraries partnered with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to curate a significant astronomy dataset. Each library took different decisions: one library assigned activities to a unit specializing in digital curation, while the other distributed activities across its existing units. Neither approach proved a silver bullet. While library staff members felt the outcomes largely met their expectations, SDSS leaders expressed mixed opinions. We identify three factors that contributed to these differences in perspective: differing strategic motivations for undertaking this Data Transfer Process, SDSS leaders' misperceptions about libraries, and organizational mismatches. These factors contributed to four differences in perspective between SDSS leaders and library staff: provenance as technical information or as information about social context, dataset as a live research object or as a static object to be preserved, systems and services tailored to the dataset or easily adaptable to other datasets, and obstacles as setbacks or as opportunities. Only those differences that emerged when SDSS collaboration members and library staff communicated frequently were resolved.

0.012348781 = product of:
  0.049395125 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=36,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

University libraries are partnering with disciplinary data producers to provide long-term digital curation of research data sets. Managing data set producer expectations and guiding future development of library services requires understanding the decisions libraries make about curatorial activities, why they make these decisions, and the effects on future data reuse. We present a study, comprising interviews (n = 43) and ethnographic observation, of two university libraries who partnered with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) collaboration to curate a significant astronomy data set. The two libraries made different choices of the materials to curate and associated services, which resulted in different reuse possibilities. Each of the libraries offered partial solutions to the SDSS leaders' objectives. The libraries' approaches to curation diverged due to contextual factors, notably the extant infrastructure at their disposal (including technical infrastructure, staff expertise, values and internal culture, and organizational structure). The Data Transfer Process case offers lessons in understanding how libraries choose curation paths and how these choices influence possibilities for data reuse. Outcomes may not match data producers' initial expectations but may create opportunities for reusing data in unexpected and beneficial ways.

0.01030382 = product of:
  0.04121528 = sum of:
    0.04121528 = product of:
      0.08243056 = sum of:
        0.08243056 = weight(_text_:management in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08243056 = score(doc=2050,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.521365 = fieldWeight in 2050, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2050)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 35(1999) no.3, S.227-243

0.006985526 = product of:
  0.027942104 = sum of:
    0.027942104 = weight(_text_:services in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027942104 = score(doc=4380,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We return to arguments made 10 years ago that online catalogs are difficult to use because their design does not incorporate sufficient understanding of searching behavior. The earlier article examined studies of information retrieval system searching for their implications for online catalog design; this article examines the implications of card catalog design for online catalogs. With this analysis, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of user behavior and to lay to rest the card catalog design model for online catalogs. We discuss the problems with query matching systems, which were designed for skilled search intermediaries rather than end-users, and the knowledge and skills they require in the information-seeking process, illustrated with examples of searching card and online catalogs. Searching requires conceptual knowledge of the information retrieval process - translating an information need into a searchable query; semantic knowledge of how to implement a query in a given system - the how and when to use system features; and technical skills in executing the query - basic computing skills and the syntax of entering queries as specific search statements. In the short term, we can help make online catalogs easier to use through improved training and documentation that is based on information-seeking bahavior, with the caveat that good training is not a substitute for good system design. Our long term goal should be to design intuitive systems that require a minimum of instruction. Given the complexity of the information retrieval problem and the limited capabilities of today's systems, we are far from achieving that goal. If libraries are to provide primary information services for the networked world, they need to put research results on the information-seeking process into practice in designing the next generation of online public access information retrieval systems

0.00515191 = product of:
  0.02060764 = sum of:
    0.02060764 = product of:
      0.04121528 = sum of:
        0.04121528 = weight(_text_:management in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04121528 = score(doc=3327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 3327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 25(1989) no.3, S.237-251

0.004766437 = product of:
  0.019065749 = sum of:
    0.019065749 = product of:
      0.038131498 = sum of:
        0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038131498 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5507, 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=5507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.2, S.121-127

0.003972031 = product of:
  0.015888125 = sum of:
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29