Search (197 results, page 1 of 10)

0.14900148 = product of:
  0.29800296 = sum of:
    0.07450074 = product of:
      0.22350222 = sum of:
        0.22350222 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22350222 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.22350222 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22350222 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.12416791 = product of:
  0.24833582 = sum of:
    0.062083956 = product of:
      0.18625186 = sum of:
        0.18625186 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18625186 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18625186 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18625186 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.082516536 = product of:
  0.16503307 = sum of:
    0.048397146 = weight(_text_:services in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048397146 = score(doc=183,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2810308 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
    0.11663592 = sum of:
      0.09121492 = weight(_text_:management in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09121492 = score(doc=183,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.57692516 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
            5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
              30.0 = termFreq=30.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025421001 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.2, S.322-341

0.035105992 = product of:
  0.070211984 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=168,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
    0.02081686 = product of:
      0.04163372 = sum of:
        0.04163372 = weight(_text_:management in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163372 = score(doc=168,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

On April 2, 2018, the State Council of China formally released a national Research Data Management (RDM) policy "Measures for Managing Scientific Data". In this context and given that university libraries have played an important role in supporting RDM at an institutional level in North America, Europe, and Australasia, the aim of this article is to explore the current status of RDM in Chinese universities, in particular how university libraries have been involved in taking the agenda forward. This article uses a mixed-methods data collection approach and draws on a website analysis of university policies and services; a questionnaire for university librarians; and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that Research Data Service at a local level in Chinese Universities are in their infancy. There is more evidence of activity in developing data repositories than support services. There is little development of local policy. Among the explanations of this may be the existence of a national-level infrastructure for some subject disciplines, the lack of professionalization of librarianship, and the relatively weak resonance of openness as an idea in the Chinese context.

0.034753162 = product of:
  0.069506325 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
    0.02060764 = product of:
      0.04121528 = sum of:
        0.04121528 = weight(_text_:management in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04121528 = score(doc=727,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 727, 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=727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Entity identity management and name reconciliation are intrinsic to both Linked Open Data (LOD) and traditional library authority control. Does this mean that LOD sources can facilitate authority control? This Emblematica Online case study examines the utility of five LOD sources for name reconciliation, comparing design differences regarding ontologies, linking models, and entity properties. It explores the challenges of name reconciliation in the LOD environment and provides lessons learned during a semi-automated name reconciliation process. It also briefly discusses the potential values and benefits of LOD authorities to the authority reconciliation process itself and library services in general.

0.03392099 = product of:
  0.06784198 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 64) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=64,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 64, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=64)
    0.032914348 = product of:
      0.065828696 = sum of:
        0.065828696 = weight(_text_:management in 64) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065828696 = score(doc=64,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.41635987 = fieldWeight in 64, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=64)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social media data (SMD) offer researchers new opportunities to leverage those data for their work in broad areas such as public opinion, digital culture, labor trends, and public health. The success of efforts to save SMD for reuse by researchers will depend on aligning data management and archiving practices with evolving norms around the capture, use, sharing, and security of datasets. This paper presents an initial foray into understanding how established practices for managing and preserving data should adapt to demands from researchers who use and reuse SMD, and from people who are subjects in SMD. We examine the data management practices of researchers who use SMD through a survey, and we analyze published articles that used data from Twitter. We discuss how researchers describe their data management practices and how these practices may differ from the management of conventional data types. We explore conceptual, technical, and ethical challenges for data archives based on the similarities and differences between SMD and other types of research data, focusing on the social sciences. Finally, we suggest areas where archives may need to revise policies, practices, and services in order to create secure, persistent, and usable collections of SMD.

0.030211486 = product of:
  0.06042297 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
    0.025495343 = product of:
      0.050990686 = sum of:
        0.050990686 = weight(_text_:management in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050990686 = score(doc=5513,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Computer users spend time every day interacting with digital files and folders, including downloading, moving, naming, navigating to, searching for, sharing, and deleting them. Such file management has been the focus of many studies across various fields, but has not been explicitly acknowledged nor made the focus of dedicated review. In this article we present the first dedicated review of this topic and its research, synthesizing more than 230 publications from various research domains to establish what is known and what remains to be investigated, particularly by examining the common motivations, methods, and findings evinced by the previously furcate body of work. We find three typical research motivations in the literature reviewed: understanding how and why users store, organize, retrieve, and share files and folders, understanding factors that determine their behavior, and attempting to improve the user experience through novel interfaces and information services. Relevant conceptual frameworks and approaches to designing and testing systems are described, and open research challenges and the significance for other research areas are discussed. We conclude that file management is a ubiquitous, challenging, and relatively unsupported activity that invites and has received attention from several disciplines and has broad importance for topics across information science.

0.030211486 = product of:
  0.06042297 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 5949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=5949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 5949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5949)
    0.025495343 = product of:
      0.050990686 = sum of:
        0.050990686 = weight(_text_:management in 5949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050990686 = score(doc=5949,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 5949, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Digital assets of organizations are under constant threat from a wide assortment of nefarious actors. When threats materialize, the consequences can be significant. Most large organizations invest in a dedicated information security management (ISM) function to ensure that digital assets are protected. The ISM function conducts risk assessments, develops strategy, provides policies and training to define roles and guide behavior, and implements technological controls such as firewalls, antivirus, and encryption to restrict unauthorized access. Despite these protective measures, incidents (security breaches) will occur. Alongside the security management function, many organizations also retain an incident response (IR) function to mitigate damage from an attack and promptly restore digital services. However, few organizations integrate and learn from experiences of these functions in an optimal manner that enables them to not only respond to security incidents, but also proactively maneuver the threat environment. In this article we draw on organizational learning theory to develop a conceptual framework that explains how the ISM and IR functions can be better integrated. The strong integration of ISM and IR functions, in turn, creates learning opportunities that lead to organizational security benefits including: increased awareness of security risks, compilation of threat intelligence, removal of flaws in security defenses, evaluation of security defensive logic, and enhanced security response.

0.030211486 = product of:
  0.06042297 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=384)
    0.025495343 = product of:
      0.050990686 = sum of:
        0.050990686 = weight(_text_:management in 384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050990686 = score(doc=384,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 384, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Research Data Management (RDM) promises to make research outputs more transparent, findable, and reproducible. Strategies to streamline data management across disciplines are of key importance. This paper presents results of an institutional survey (N = 258) at a medium-sized Austrian university with a STEM focus, supplemented with interviews (N = 18), to give an overview of the state-of-play of RDM practices across faculties and disciplinary contexts. RDM services are on the rise but remain somewhat behind leading countries like the Netherlands and UK, showing only the beginnings of a culture attuned to RDM. There is considerable variation between faculties and institutes with respect to data amounts, complexity of data sets, data collection and analysis, and data archiving. Data sharing practices within fields tend to be inconsistent. RDM is predominantly regarded as an administrative task, to the detriment of considerations of good research practice. Problems with RDM fall in two categories: Generic problems transcend specific research interests, infrastructures, and departments while discipline-specific problems need a more targeted approach. The paper extends the state-of-the-art on RDM practices by combining in-depth qualitative material with quantified, detailed data about RDM practices and needs. The findings should be of interest to any comparable research institution with a similar agenda.

0.029788423 = product of:
  0.059576847 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 5803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=5803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 5803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5803)
    0.017663691 = product of:
      0.035327382 = sum of:
        0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 5803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035327382 = score(doc=5803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 5803, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In 2018, the national, bilingual authority file maintained by Library and Archives Canada (LAC), called Canadiana Authorities, underwent major changes when the internally-developed Integrated Library System (ILS) AMICUS was decommissioned and OCLC's WorldShare Management Services (WMS) was adopted as a replacement. As a part of the transition, LAC split its single, bilingual authority file Canadiana Authorities into separate English and French language files and joined Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) in order to manage its English-language authority records. This has been a significant change that has challenged the organization to rethink everyday practices while maintaining its commitments to the Canadian and global library community. This paper discusses this national library's history of bilingual cataloging, the reason for the changes, and the attempt to ensure that the two files "talk" to each other.

0.027872246 = product of:
  0.05574449 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
    0.02081686 = product of:
      0.04163372 = sum of:
        0.04163372 = weight(_text_:management in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163372 = score(doc=309,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Here, we report on a qualitative study that examined research information management (RIM) ecosystems on research university campuses from the perspectives of research information (RI) managers and librarians. In the study, we identified 21 RIM services offered to researchers, ranging from discovering, storing, and sharing authored content to identifying expertise, recruiting faculty, and ensuring the diversity of committee assignments. In addition, we identified 15 types of RIM service provision and adoption problems, analyzed their activity structures, and connected them to strategies for their resolution. Finally, we report on skills that the study participants reported as being needed in their work. These findings can inform the development of best practice guides for RIM on university campuses. The study also advances the state of the art of RIM research by applying the typology of contradictions from activity theory to categorize the problems of RIM service provision and connect their resolution to theories and findings of prior studies in the literature. In this way, the research expands the theoretical base used to study RIM in general and RIM at research universities in particular.

0.025407877 = product of:
  0.050815754 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 5617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5617)
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5617, 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=5617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In a digital library, book search is one of the most important information services. However, with the rapid development of network technologies such as cloud computing, the server-side of a digital library is becoming more and more untrusted; thus, how to prevent the disclosure of users' book query privacy is causing people's increasingly extensive concern. In this article, we propose to construct a group of plausible fake queries for each user book query to cover up the sensitive subjects behind users' queries. First, we propose a basic framework for the privacy protection in book search, which requires no change to the book search algorithm running on the server-side, and no compromise to the accuracy of book search. Second, we present a privacy protection model for book search to formulate the constraints that ideal fake queries should satisfy, that is, (i) the feature similarity, which measures the confusion effect of fake queries on users' queries, and (ii) the privacy exposure, which measures the cover-up effect of fake queries on users' sensitive subjects. Third, we discuss the algorithm implementation for the privacy model. Finally, the effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated by theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation.

Date

6. 1.2020 17:22:25

0.025407877 = product of:
  0.050815754 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.015888125 = product of:
      0.03177625 = sum of:
        0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03177625 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.024823686 = product of:
  0.049647372 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 5507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5507)
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5507, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of detecting crisis-related messages on social media, in order to improve the situational awareness of emergency services. Previous work focused on developing machine-learning classifiers restricted to specific disasters, such as storms or wildfires. We investigate for the first time methods to detect such messages where the type of the crisis is not known in advance, that is, the data are highly heterogeneous. Data heterogeneity causes significant difficulties for learning algorithms to generalize and accurately label incoming data. Our main contributions are as follows. First, we evaluate the extent of this problem in the context of disaster management, finding that the performance of traditional learners drops by up to 40% when trained and tested on heterogeneous data vis-á-vis homogeneous data. Then, in order to overcome data heterogeneity, we propose a new ensemble learning method, and found this to perform on a par with the Gradient Boosting and AdaBoost ensemble learners. The methods are studied on a benchmark data set comprising 26 disaster events and four classification problems: detection of relevant messages, informative messages, eyewitness reports, and topical classification of messages. Finally, in a case study, we evaluate the proposed methods on a real-world data set to assess its practical value.

0.022440203 = product of:
  0.044880405 = sum of:
    0.034576587 = weight(_text_:services in 717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034576587 = score(doc=717,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.20077808 = fieldWeight in 717, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=717)
    0.01030382 = product of:
      0.02060764 = sum of:
        0.02060764 = weight(_text_:management in 717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02060764 = score(doc=717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 717, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The circ stats say it all: graphic novels' popularity among library users keeps growing, with more being published (and acquired by libraries) each year. The unique challenges of developing and managing a graphics novels collection have led the Association of Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) to craft this guide, presented under the expert supervision of editor Ballestro, who has worked with comics for more than 35 years. Examining the ever-changing ways that graphic novels are created, packaged, marketed, and released, this resource gathers a range of voices from the field to explore such topics as: a cultural history of comics and graphic novels from their World War II origins to today, providing a solid grounding for newbies and fresh insights for all; catching up on the Big Two's reboots: Marvel's 10 and DC's 4; five questions to ask when evaluating nonfiction graphic novels and 30 picks for a core collection; key publishers and cartoonists to consider when adding international titles; developing a collection that supports curriculum and faculty outreach to ensure wide usage, with catalogers' tips for organizing your collection and improving discovery; real-world examples of how libraries treat graphic novels, such as an in-depth profile of the development of Penn Library's Manga collection; how to integrate the emerging field of graphic medicine into the collection; and specialized resources like The Cartoonists of Color and Queer Cartoonists databases, the open access scholarly journal Comic Grid, and the No Flying, No Tights website. Packed with expert guidance and useful information, this guide will assist technical services staff, catalogers, and acquisition and collection management librarians.

0.021173751 = product of:
  0.084695004 = sum of:
    0.084695004 = weight(_text_:services in 699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084695004 = score(doc=699,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.4918039 = fieldWeight in 699, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=699)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wilson stated that the work of providing bibliographic services is political in nature because catalogers have to adjudicate amongst the demands made for various forms of control by different communities. Although he did not address the work of the Documentalists directly, his claim is an implicit refutation of their universalist claims. Their efforts were to bring all the world's knowledge together, organize it under a single principle, and make it available to an undifferentiated global community. The concept of "universality" is examined in the context of bibliographic services, looking at claims regarding the collection of knowledge, users, and access.

0.020777594 = product of:
  0.08311038 = sum of:
    0.08311038 = sum of:
      0.057689376 = weight(_text_:management in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057689376 = score(doc=181,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.3648795 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
      0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025421001 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 181, 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=181)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. A survey study is used to approach what their information needs are, how these needs change during an engineering design project and how their information-seeking behaviours have been influenced by the newly developed information technologies (ITs). Through an in-depth analysis of the survey results, the key functions have been identified for the next-generation management systems. Design/methodology/approach The paper first proposed four hypotheses on the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of young engineers. Then, a survey study was undertaken to understand their information usage in terms of the information needs and information-seeking behaviours during a complete engineering design process. Through analysing the survey results, several findings were obtained and on this basis, further comparisons were made to discuss and evaluate the hypotheses. Findings The paper has revealed that the engineering designers' information needs will evolve throughout the engineering design project; thus, they should be assisted at several different levels. Although they intend to search information and knowledge on know-what and know-how, what they really require is the know-why knowledge in order to help them complete design tasks. Also, the paper has shown how the newly developed ITs and web-based applications have influenced the engineers' information-seeking practices. Research limitations/implications The research subjects chosen in this study are engineering students in universities who, although not as experienced as engineers in companies, do go through a complete design process with the tasks similar to industrial scenarios. In addition, the focus of this study is to understand the information-seeking behaviours of a new generation of design engineers, so that the development of next-generation information and knowledge management systems can be well informed. In this sense, the results obtained do reveal some new knowledge about the information-seeking behaviours during a general design process. Practical implications This paper first identifies the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. On this basis, the varied ways to meet these needs and behaviours are discussed and elaborated. This intends to provide the key characteristics for the development of the next-generation knowledge management system for engineering design projects. Originality/value This paper proposes a novel means of exploring the future engineers' information needs and information-seeking behaviours in a collaborative working environment. It also characterises the key features and functions for the next generation of knowledge management systems for engineering design.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.853-868

0.01952099 = product of:
  0.07808396 = sum of:
    0.07808396 = sum of:
      0.052662957 = weight(_text_:management in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052662957 = score(doc=566,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.3330879 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
      0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025421001 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 566, 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=566)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge Architectures reviews traditional approaches to managing information and explains why they need to adapt to support 21st-century information management and discovery. Exploring the rapidly changing environment in which information is being managed and accessed, the book considers how to use knowledge architectures, the basic structures and designs that underlie all of the parts of an effective information system, to best advantage. Drawing on 40 years of work with a variety of organizations, Bedford explains that failure to understand the structure behind any given system can be the difference between an effective solution and a significant and costly failure. Demonstrating that the information user environment has shifted significantly in the past 20 years, the book explains that end users now expect designs and behaviors that are much closer to the way they think, work, and act. Acknowledging how important it is that those responsible for developing an information or knowledge management system understand knowledge structures, the book goes beyond a traditional library science perspective and uses case studies to help translate the abstract and theoretical to the practical and concrete. Explaining the structures in a simple and intuitive way and providing examples that clearly illustrate the challenges faced by a range of different organizations, Knowledge Architectures is essential reading for those studying and working in library and information science, data science, systems development, database design, and search system architecture and engineering.

Content

Section 1 Context and purpose of knowledge architecture -- 1 Making the case for knowledge architecture -- 2 The landscape of knowledge assets -- 3 Knowledge architecture and design -- 4 Knowledge architecture reference model -- 5 Knowledge architecture segments -- Section 2 Designing for availability -- 6 Knowledge object modeling -- 7 Knowledge structures for encoding, formatting, and packaging -- 8 Functional architecture for identification and distinction -- 9 Functional architectures for knowledge asset disposition and destruction -- 10 Functional architecture designs for knowledge preservation and conservation -- Section 3 Designing for accessibility -- 11 Functional architectures for knowledge seeking and discovery -- 12 Functional architecture for knowledge search -- 13 Functional architecture for knowledge categorization -- 14 Functional architectures for indexing and keywording -- 15 Functional architecture for knowledge semantics -- 16 Functional architecture for knowledge abstraction and surrogation -- Section 4 Functional architectures to support knowledge consumption -- 17 Functional architecture for knowledge augmentation, derivation, and synthesis -- 18 Functional architecture to manage risk and harm -- 19 Functional architectures for knowledge authentication and provenance -- 20 Functional architectures for securing knowledge assets -- 21 Functional architectures for authorization and asset management -- Section 5 Pulling it all together - the big picture knowledge architecture -- 22 Functional architecture for knowledge metadata and metainformation -- 23 The whole knowledge architecture - pulling it all together

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems / Management

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems / Management

0.01836472 = product of:
  0.07345888 = sum of:
    0.07345888 = sum of:
      0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035327382 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
      0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038131498 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.1, S.129-143

0.01836472 = product of:
  0.07345888 = sum of:
    0.07345888 = sum of:
      0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035327382 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
      0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038131498 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 184, 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=184)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.2 S.144-159