Search (862 results, page 1 of 44)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Oh, H.; Nam, S.; Zhu, Y.: Structured abstract summarization of scientific articles : summarization using full-text section information (2023) 0.21 
    0.21056426 = product of:
  0.26320532 = sum of:
    0.17146775 = weight(_text_:section in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17146775 = score(doc=889,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.65183586 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
    0.014699157 = weight(_text_:information in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014699157 = score(doc=889,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 889, 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=889)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    The automatic summarization of scientific articles differs from other text genres because of the structured format and longer text length. Previous approaches have focused on tackling the lengthy nature of scientific articles, aiming to improve the computational efficiency of summarizing long text using a flat, unstructured abstract. However, the structured format of scientific articles and characteristics of each section have not been fully explored, despite their importance. The lack of a sufficient investigation and discussion of various characteristics for each section and their influence on summarization results has hindered the practical use of automatic summarization for scientific articles. To provide a balanced abstract proportionally emphasizing each section of a scientific article, the community introduced the structured abstract, an abstract with distinct, labeled sections. Using this information, in this study, we aim to understand tasks ranging from data preparation to model evaluation from diverse viewpoints. Specifically, we provide a preprocessed large-scale dataset and propose a summarization method applying the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD) format reflecting the characteristics of each section. We also discuss the objective benchmarks and perspectives of state-of-the-art algorithms and present the challenges and research directions in this area.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:57:12
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.234-248
  2. Aspray, W.; Aspray, P.: Does technology really outpace policy, and does it matter? : a primer for technical experts and others (2023) 0.15 
    0.14904277 = product of:
  0.18630345 = sum of:
    0.07668271 = weight(_text_:section in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07668271 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29150987 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=1017,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.014699157 = weight(_text_:information in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014699157 = score(doc=1017,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.076082036 = sum of:
      0.042312037 = weight(_text_:technology in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042312037 = score(doc=1017,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2849816 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1017, 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=1017)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    This paper reconsiders the outpacing argument, the belief that changes in law and other means of regulation cannot keep pace with recent changes in technology. We focus on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in and of themselves as well as applied in computer science, telecommunications, health, finance, and other applications, but our argument applies also in rapidly developing technological fields such as environmental science, materials science, and genetic engineering. First, we discuss why the outpacing argument is so closely associated with information and computing technologies. We then outline 12 arguments that support the outpacing argument, by pointing to some particular weaknesses of policy making, using the United States as the primary example. Then arguing in the opposite direction, we present 4 brief and 3 more extended criticisms of the outpacing thesis. The paper's final section responds to calls within the technical community for greater engagement of policy and ethical concerns and reviews the paper's major arguments. While the paper focuses on ICTs and policy making in the United States, our critique of the outpacing argument and our exploration of its complex character are of utility to actors in other political contexts and in other technical fields.
    Date
    22. 7.2023 13:28:28
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.885-904
  3. Bedford, D.: Knowledge architectures : structures and semantics (2021) 0.15 
    0.14708547 = product of:
  0.18385684 = sum of:
    0.1371742 = weight(_text_:section in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1371742 = score(doc=566,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.5214687 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.010657255 = weight(_text_:on in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010657255 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.022517392 = weight(_text_:information in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022517392 = score(doc=566,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.25731003 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.0135079995 = product of:
      0.027015999 = sum of:
        0.027015999 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027015999 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    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 science
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Management
    Subject
    Information science
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Management
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020) 0.13 
    0.12789413 = product of:
  0.21315688 = sum of:
    0.1878335 = weight(_text_:section in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1878335 = score(doc=24,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.7140504 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=24,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
  5. Huang, S.; Qian, J.; Huang, Y.; Lu, W.; Bu, Y.; Yang, J.; Cheng, Q.: Disclosing the relationship between citation structure and future impact of a publication (2022) 0.11 
    0.11397463 = product of:
  0.14246829 = sum of:
    0.10844573 = weight(_text_:section in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10844573 = score(doc=621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.4122572 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    Each section header of an article has its distinct communicative function. Citations from distinct sections may be different regarding citing motivation. In this paper, we grouped section headers with similar functions as a structural function and defined the distribution of citations from structural functions for a paper as its citation structure. We aim to explore the relationship between citation structure and the future impact of a publication and disclose the relative importance among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, we proposed two citation counting methods and a citation life cycle identification method, by which the regression data were built. Subsequently, we employed a ridge regression model to predict the future impact of the paper and analyzed the relative weights of regressors. Based on documents collected from the Association for Computational Linguistics Anthology website, our empirical experiments disclosed that functional structure features improve the prediction accuracy of citation count prediction and that there exist differences among citations from different structural functions. Specifically, at the early stage of citation lifetime, citations from Introduction and Method are particularly important for perceiving future impact of papers, and citations from Result and Conclusion are also vital. However, early accumulation of citations from the Background seems less important.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.7, S.1025-1042
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Science, Part I : basic conceptions of science and the scientific method (2021) 0.10 
    0.10265571 = product of:
  0.17109284 = sum of:
    0.13281834 = weight(_text_:section in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13281834 = score(doc=594,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.5049099 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
    0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029787935 = score(doc=594,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special issue on 'Science and knowledge organization' mit längeren Überblicken zu wichtigen Begriffen der Wissensorgansiation.
  7. Worrall, A.; Cappello, A.; Osolen, R.: ¬The importance of socio-emotional considerations in online communities, social informatics, and information science (2021) 0.10 
    0.102142714 = product of:
  0.1276784 = sum of:
    0.07668271 = weight(_text_:section in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07668271 = score(doc=354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29150987 = fieldWeight in 354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=354)
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=354)
    0.025459683 = weight(_text_:information in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025459683 = score(doc=354,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 354, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=354)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=354,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 354, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=354)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    Alongside cognitive and social phenomena, many scholars have examined emotional and affective considerations in information science, but a potential emotional or affective paradigm has not coalesced to the extent of the social or cognitive paradigms. We argue information science research should integrate the social paradigm, as offered by social informatics, with affective and emotional considerations: a socio-emotional paradigm. A review of existing literature and findings from users' motivations to participate on the Academia section of the Stack Exchange social questioning-and-answering site make our case. We uncovered tensions between the intended information-centric focus of the community and users who believed social, emotional, and affective considerations needed to be foregrounded, speaking to online communities acting as boundary objects, with the "fit" for one user or community not always the same as for another. An integrated socio-emotional paradigm shows much strength for social informatics and information science research, including uncovering hidden concerns and differences in values, as in our study. Affective and emotional research, often bubbling under in information science, should rise to the surface is not so much a paradigm shift but an integration of social, emotional, and affective considerations into a socio-emotional paradigm.
    Series
    Special issue: Paradigm shift in the field of information
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.10, S.1247-1260
    Theme
    Information
  8. Chen, L.; Ding, J.; Larivière, V.: Measuring the citation context of national self-references : how a web journal club is used (2022) 0.10 
    0.09636587 = product of:
  0.12045734 = sum of:
    0.07668271 = weight(_text_:section in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07668271 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29150987 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=545,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    The emphasis on research evaluation has brought scrutiny to the role of self-citations in the scholarly communication process. While author self-citations have been studied at length, little is known on national-level self-references (SRs). This paper analyses the citation context of national SRs, using the full-text of 184,859 papers published in PLOS journals. It investigates the differences between national SRs and nonself-references (NSRs) in terms of their in-text mention, presence in enumerations, and location features. For all countries, national SRs exhibit a higher level of engagement than NSRs. NSRs are more often found in enumerative citances than SRs, which suggests that researchers pay more attention to domestic than foreign studies. There are more mentions of national research in the methods section, which provides evidence that methodologies developed in a nation are more likely to be used by other researchers from the same nation. Publications from the United States are cited at a higher rate in each of the sections, indicating that the country still maintains a dominant position in science. On the whole, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of national SRs in the scholarly communication system, and how it varies across countries and over time.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.671-686
  9. Park, M.S.; Park, J.H.; Kim, H.; Lee, J.H.; Park, H.: Measuring the impacts of quantity and trustworthiness of information on COVID-19 vaccination intent (2023) 0.07 
    0.07461545 = product of:
  0.12435908 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=996,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
    0.029398315 = weight(_text_:information in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029398315 = score(doc=996,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
    0.06831763 = sum of:
      0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03454763 = score(doc=996,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 996, 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=996)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The COVID-19 crisis provided an opportunity for information professionals to rethink the role of information in individuals' decision making such as vaccine uptake. Unlike previous studies, which often considered information as a single factor among others, this study examined the impact of the quantity and trustworthiness of information on people's adoption of information for vaccination decisions based on the information adoption model. We analyzed COVID-19 Preventive Behavior Survey data collected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from Facebook users (N = 82,213) in 15 countries between October 2020 and March 2021. The results of logistic regression analyses indicate that reasonable quantity and trustworthiness of information were positively related to COVID-19 vaccination intent. But excessive and less than the desired amount of information was more likely to have negative impacts on vaccination intent. The degrees of trust in the mediums and in the sources were associated with the level of vaccine acceptance. But the effects of trustworthiness accorded to information sources showed variations across sources and mediums. Implications for information professionals and suggestions for policies are discussed.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:20:47
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.846-865
  10. Hertzum, M.: Information seeking by experimentation : trying something out to discover what happens (2023) 0.07 
    0.073525794 = product of:
  0.122542985 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
    0.036718477 = weight(_text_:information in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036718477 = score(doc=915,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.41958824 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Experimentation is the process of trying something out to discover what happens. It is a widespread information practice, yet often bypassed in information-behavior research. This article argues that experimentation complements prior knowledge, documents, and people as an important fourth class of information sources. Relative to the other classes, the distinguishing characteristics of experimentation are that it is a personal-as opposed to interpersonal-source and that it provides "backtalk." When the information seeker tries something out and then attends to the resulting situation, it is as though the materials of the situation talk back: They provide the information seeker with a situated and direct experience of the consequences of the tried-out options. In this way, experimentation involves obtaining information by creating it. It also involves turning material and behavioral processes into information interactions. Thereby, information seeking by experimentation is important to practical information literacy and extends information-behavior research with new insights on the interrelations between creating and seeking information.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:29
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.383-387
  11. Hjoerland, B.: Education in knowledge organization (KO) (2023) 0.07 
    0.07326134 = product of:
  0.18315336 = sum of:
    0.15336542 = weight(_text_:section in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15336542 = score(doc=1124,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.58301973 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
    0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029787935 = score(doc=1124,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.
  12. Wu, P.F.: Veni, vidi, vici? : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.07 
    0.07184098 = product of:
  0.11973496 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=896,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
    0.08147841 = sum of:
      0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03420041 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
      0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047278 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 896, 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=896)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    JASIST has in recent years received many submissions reporting data analytics based on "Big Data" of online reviews scraped from various platforms. By outlining major issues in this type of scape-and-report scholarship and providing a set of recommendations, this essay encourages online reviews researchers to look at Big Data with a critical eye and treat online reviews as a sociotechnical "thing" produced within the fabric of sociomaterial life.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:33:53
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.145-149
  13. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.07 
    0.07087932 = product of:
  0.1181322 = sum of:
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=998,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.018976528 = weight(_text_:information in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018976528 = score(doc=998,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.076082036 = sum of:
      0.042312037 = weight(_text_:technology in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042312037 = score(doc=998,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2849816 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827
  14. Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023) 0.07 
    0.067205876 = product of:
  0.11200979 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
    0.08147841 = sum of:
      0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03420041 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
      0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047278 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    In recent years, cultural heritage institutions have been exploring the benefits of applying Linked Open Data to their catalogs and digital materials. Innovative and creative methods have emerged to publish and reuse digital contents to promote computational access, such as the concepts of Labs and Collections as Data. Data quality has become a requirement for researchers and training methods based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article explores how the quality of Linked Open Data made available by cultural heritage institutions can be automatically assessed. The results obtained can be useful for other institutions who wish to publish and assess their collections.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:23:31
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.866-878
  15. Ilhan, A.; Fietkiewicz, K.J.: Data privacy-related behavior and concerns of activity tracking technology users from Germany and the USA (2021) 0.07 
    0.06669449 = product of:
  0.11115748 = sum of:
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=180,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=180,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.076082036 = sum of:
      0.042312037 = weight(_text_:technology in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042312037 = score(doc=180,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2849816 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose This investigation aims to examine the differences and similarities between activity tracking technology users from two regions (the USA and Germany) in their intended privacy-related behavior. The focus lies on data handling after hypothetical discontinuance of use, data protection and privacy policy seeking, and privacy concerns. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected through an online survey in 2019. In order to identify significant differences between participants from Germany and the USA, the chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test were applied. Findings The intensity of several privacy-related concerns was significantly different between the two groups. The majority of the participants did not inform themselves about the respective data privacy policies or terms and conditions before installing an activity tracking application. The majority of the German participants knew that they could request the deletion of all their collected data. In contrast, only 35% out of 68 participants from the US knew about this option. Research limitations/implications This study intends to raise awareness about managing the collected health and fitness data after stopping to use activity tracking technologies. Furthermore, to reduce privacy and security concerns, the involvement of the government, companies and users is necessary to handle and share data more considerably and in a sustainable way. Originality/value This study sheds light on users of activity tracking technologies from a broad perspective (here, participants from the USA and Germany). It incorporates not only concerns and the privacy paradox but (intended) user behavior, including seeking information on data protection and privacy policy and handling data after hypothetical discontinuance of use of the technology.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.2, S.180-200
  16. Das, S.; Paik, J.H.: Gender tagging of named entities using retrieval-assisted multi-context aggregation : an unsupervised approach (2023) 0.07 
    0.06605104 = product of:
  0.11008507 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.017638987 = weight(_text_:information in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017638987 = score(doc=941,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Inferring the gender of named entities present in a text has several practical applications in information sciences. Existing approaches toward name gender identification rely exclusively on using the gender distributions from labeled data. In the absence of such labeled data, these methods fail. In this article, we propose a two-stage model that is able to infer the gender of names present in text without requiring explicit name-gender labels. We use coreference resolution as the backbone for our proposed model. To aid coreference resolution where the existing contextual information does not suffice, we use a retrieval-assisted context aggregation framework. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art name gender inference is possible without supervision. Our proposed method matches or outperforms several supervised approaches and commercially used methods on five English language datasets from different domains.
    Date
    22. 3.2023 12:00:14
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.461-475
  17. Price, L.; Robinson, L.: Tag analysis as a tool for investigating information behaviour : comparing fan-tagging on Tumblr, Archive of Our Own and Etsy (2021) 0.06 
    0.06487178 = product of:
  0.10811963 = sum of:
    0.061346166 = weight(_text_:section in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061346166 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23320788 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.03014327 = weight(_text_:on in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03014327 = score(doc=339,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.016630197 = weight(_text_:information in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016630197 = score(doc=339,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose This article describes the third part of a three-stage study investigating the information behaviour of fans and fan communities, the first stage of which is described in the study by Price and Robinson (2017). Design/methodology/approach Using tag analysis as a method, a comparative case study was undertaken to explore three aspects of fan information behaviour: information gatekeeping; classifying and tagging and entrepreneurship and economic activity. The case studies took place on three sites used by fans-Tumblr, Archive of Our Own (AO3) and Etsy. Supplementary semi-structured interviews with site users were used to augment the findings with qualitative data. Findings These showed that fans used tags in a variety of ways quite apart from classification purposes. These included tags being used on Tumblr as meta-commentary and a means of dialogue between users, as well as expressors of emotion and affect towards posts. On AO3 in particular, fans had developed a practice called "tag wrangling" to mitigate the inherent "messiness" of tagging. Evidence was also found of a "hybrid market economy" on Etsy fan stores. From the study findings, a taxonomy of fan-related tags was developed. Research limitations/implications Findings are limited to the tagging practices on only three sites used by fans during Spring 2016, and further research on other similar sites are recommended. Longitudinal studies of these sites would be beneficial in understanding how or whether tagging practices change over time. Testing of the fan-tag taxonomy developed in this paper is also recommended. Originality/value This research develops a method for using tag analysis to describe information behaviour. It also develops a fan-tag taxonomy, which may be used in future research on the tagging practices of fans, which heretofore have been a little-studied section of serious leisure information users.
  18. Haimson, O.L.; Carter, A.J.; Corvite, S.; Wheeler, B.; Wang, L.; Liu, T.; Lige, A.: ¬The major life events taxonomy : social readjustment, social media information sharing, and online network separation during times of life transition (2021) 0.06 
    0.06417755 = product of:
  0.10696258 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=263,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
    0.06831763 = sum of:
      0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03454763 = score(doc=263,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    When people experience major life changes, this often impacts their self-presentation, networks, and online behavior in substantial ways. To effectively study major life transitions and events, we surveyed a large U.S. sample (n = 554) to create the Major Life Events Taxonomy, a list of 121 life events in 12 categories. We then applied this taxonomy to a second large U.S. survey sample (n = 775) to understand on average how much social readjustment each event required, how likely each event was to be shared on social media with different types of audiences, and how much online network separation each involved. We found that social readjustment is positively correlated with sharing on social media, with both broad audiences and close ties as well as in online spaces separate from one's network of known ties. Some life transitions involve high levels of sharing with both separate audiences and broad audiences on social media, providing evidence for what previous research has called social media as social transition machinery. Researchers can use the Major Life Events Taxonomy to examine how people's life transition experiences relate to their behaviors, technology use, and health and well-being outcomes.
    Date
    10. 6.2021 19:22:47
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.7, S.933-947
  19. Newell, B.C.: Surveillance as information practice (2023) 0.06 
    0.06390685 = product of:
  0.106511414 = sum of:
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
    0.03499099 = weight(_text_:information in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03499099 = score(doc=921,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.39984792 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 921, 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=921)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Surveillance, as a concept and social practice, is inextricably linked to information. It is, at its core, about information extraction and analysis conducted for some regulatory purpose. Yet, information science research only sporadically leverages surveillance studies scholarship, and we see a lack of sustained and focused attention to surveillance as an object of research within the domains of information behavior and social informatics. Surveillance, as a range of contextual and culturally based social practices defined by their connections to information seeking and use, should be framed as information practice-as that term is used within information behavior scholarship. Similarly, manifestations of surveillance in society are frequently perfect examples of information and communications technologies situated within everyday social and organizational structures-the very focus of social informatics research. The technological infrastructures and material artifacts of surveillance practice-surveillance technologies-can also be viewed as information tools. Framing surveillance as information practice and conceptualizing surveillance technologies as socially and contextually situated information tools can provide space for new avenues of research within the information sciences, especially within information disciplines that focus their attention on the social aspects of information and information technologies in society.
    Date
    22. 3.2023 11:57:47
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.444-460
  20. Shahbazi, M.; Bunker, D.; Sorrell, T.C.: Communicating shared situational awareness in times of chaos : social media and the COVID-19 pandemic (2023) 0.06 
    0.06229112 = product of:
  0.10381853 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=1054,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
    0.018976528 = weight(_text_:information in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018976528 = score(doc=1054,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=1054,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=1054,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1054, 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=1054)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    To effectively manage a crisis, most decisions made by governments, organizations, communities, and individuals are based on "shared situational awareness" (SSA) derived from multiple information sources. Developing SSA depends on the alignment of mental models, which "represent our shared version of truth and reality on which we can act." Social media has facilitated public sensemaking during a crisis; however, it has also encouraged mental model dissonance, resulting in the digital destruction of mental models and undermining adequate SSA. The study is concerned with the challenges of creating SSA during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. This paper documents a netnography of Australian public health agencies' Facebook communication, exploring the initial impact of COVID-19 on SSA creation. Chaos theory is used as a theoretical lens to examine information perception, meaning, and assumptions relating to SSA from pre to post-pandemic periods. Our study highlights how the initial COVID-19 "butterfly effect" swamped the public health communication channel, leaving little space for other important health issues. This research contributes to information systems, information science, and communications by illustrating how the emergence of a crisis impacts social media communication, the creation of SSA, and what this means for social media adoption for crisis communication purposes.
    Date
    22. 9.2023 16:02:26
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.10, S.1185-1202

Authors

Languages

  • e 740
  • d 115
  • pt 4
  • m 2
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 810
  • el 101
  • m 24
  • p 10
  • s 6
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications