Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.070258856 = product of:
  0.14051771 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2358,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
    0.12595215 = sum of:
      0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08496841 = score(doc=2358,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A naïve user seeking introductory information on a topic may perceive a domain as it is shown by the search results in a database; however, inconsistencies in indexing can misrepresent the full picture of the domain by including irrelevant documents or omitting relevant ones, sometimes inexplicably. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the domain of ethics in knowledge organization in the World of Science (WoS) and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) databases to discern how it is being presented by search results in those databases and to attempt to determine why inconsistencies occurred.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the 3rd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Knowledge Organization, May 28-29, 2015, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_5.

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

Source

Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.5, S.269-275

0.022359734 = product of:
  0.04471947 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=1492,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 1492, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1492)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1492, 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=1492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Informationsdienste werden heutzutage von großen Teilen der Bevölkerung im Berufs- wie im Privatleben genutzt. Es ist ein wichtiges informationswissenschaftliches Thema, Informationsdienste adäquat zu beschreiben und ihre Qualität zu bewerten. Unser Information Service Evaluation (ISE) Modell führt unterschiedliche Traditionen der Evaluations- sowie der Technologieakzeptanzforschung zusammen und besteht aus fünf Dimensionen: Qualität des Informationsdienstes, Nutzer, Informationsakzeptanz, Informationsumfeld und Zeit. Der Überblicks­artikel erläutert diese Dimension und bietet einen Einblick in ein flexibel handhabbares und umfassendes holistisches Modell der Beschreibung und Bewertung von Informationsdiensten.

Date

22. 9.2014 18:56:46

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 65(2014) H.4/5, S.239-246

0.019165486 = product of:
  0.038330972 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=1540,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.12, S.2381-2403

0.018586013 = product of:
  0.037172027 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=4941,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4941, 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=4941)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=4941,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately 12 subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, including the 25 categories that are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities, and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of the University of California at Los Angeles as an example of institutional organization.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2414-2426

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.6, S.1198-1212

0.013142297 = product of:
  0.026284594 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5471, 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=5471)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=5471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 5471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the "Cited Reference Search" in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

0.011736078 = product of:
  0.046944313 = sum of:
    0.046944313 = weight(_text_:standards in 4882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046944313 = score(doc=4882,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20891973 = fieldWeight in 4882, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4882)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Auch das ist kein origineller Gedanke - aber wie auch? Das hat unmittelbar mit dem Internet selbst zu tun, ist es doch eine Plattform des Recyclings, der nicht abreißenden Vervielfältigung von Informationen und Meinungen. Was im Internet erst in Umlauf ist, wird in Sekundenbruchteilen übernommen - vieles davon unhinterfragt. Was im Internet Meinung ist, spricht nicht zwangsläufig für offene Formen der Kommunikation, auch wenn sie immerzu behauptet werden, gebetsmühlenartig wiederholt werden. Sicher, das Internet ist ein Schauplatz, der Regierungen nicht nur irritiert, sondern ins Wanken gebracht hat, etwa im vergangenen Jahr, man denke nur an die Empörungen und Massenerhebungen in Nordafrika. Dennoch ist das Internet, dem auch der Wikipedia-Gründer Wales huldigt wie einem Fetisch, nicht unter allen Umständen ein Forum der Aufklärung geworden - wenn man darunter weiterhin so etwas wie die Selbsttätigkeit des Denkens versteht, den Versuch, sich seines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen, der sich orientiert an allgemein verbindlichen Standards. In demokratisch legitimierten Gesetzen kann man solche Standards verbrieft sehen - und dazu zählt, auch das ist kein origineller Gedanke, das Urheberrecht. Dessen Wahrung durch Gesetze vermag mit der ungeheuren Dynamik des Internets nicht Schritt zu halten. Zu dieser Dynamik zählt eine permanent in die Welt gesetzte Selbstlegitimierung des Internets durch seine Protagonisten - ein Freibrief auch für Übertretungen oder Rechtsbrüche, die eine demokratisch herbeigeführte Gesetzgebung zu ahnden hat.

0.008298661 = product of:
  0.033194643 = sum of:
    0.033194643 = weight(_text_:standards in 3369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033194643 = score(doc=3369,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14772856 = fieldWeight in 3369, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3369)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Es ist ein Ritterschlag für die Gruppe von Idealisten, die aus einer Handvoll Informatiker, Journalisten und Menschenrechtsaktivisten sowie mehreren Hundert Zuträgern aus aller Welt besteht. Sie sichten und bewerten Informationen, die ihnen zugespielt werden, soweit es ihnen möglich ist, und veröffentlichen die Dokumente so, dass keine Hinweise auf die jeweiligen Einsender übrig bleiben. Ihre Server stehen in Ländern, in denen Meinungsfreiheit und Quellenschutz geachtet werden. Ihre Daten verschlüsseln sie nach militärischen Standards. Bis heute ist kein Informant enttarnt worden, keines der mehr als 100 Justizverfahren gegen Wikileaks war erfolgreich. In diesem Jahr hat Wikileaks jedoch ein Problem: Geldmangel. Julian Assange und die anderen Köpfe des Projekts arbeiten ehrenamtlich und leben von ihrem Ersparten, dass mittlerweile jedoch aufgebraucht ist. Weil aber die Popularität der Seite immer weiter steigt, erhöhen sich auch die Kosten für Server und Verwaltung ständig. 600.000 US-Dollar brauchen die Macher für dieses Jahr, um das Projekt weiterhin in Vollzeit betreiben zu können. Knapp zwei Drittel davon haben sie in den letzten Monaten durch Spenden eingenommen. Der Bericht des US-Geheimdienstes kommt deshalb auch zur rechten Zeit. Er ist in erster Linie Werbung für Wikileaks. Julian Assange und die anderen sehen sich gerne als kompromisslose Geheimnisverräter und damit als Vorreiter der Informationsfreiheit und des investigativen Journalismus. Der US-Report belegt die Relevanz der Plattform. Wenn er denn echt ist. Die Stärken von Wikileaks sind nämlich zugleich Schwächen: Anonymität und Intransparenz sind einerseits notwendige Schutzmaßnahmen, machen es andererseits aber schwierig, die Veröffentlichungen auf ihre Authentizität zu prüfen. Wikileaks hat auch schon gefälschte Dokumente veröffentlicht - etwa einen positiven Aids-Test von Apple-Chef Steve Jobs - dabei nach eigenen Angaben aber immer darauf hingewiesen, dass es sich um eine Fälschung handelt. In den wenigen Berichten jedenfalls, die es bislang zur nun veröffentlichten Analyse des Geheimdienstes gibt, ist von Zweifeln nichts zu spüren - das Vertrauen auch der etablierten Medien in Wikileaks ist mittlerweile groß.

0.008142399 = product of:
  0.032569595 = sum of:
    0.032569595 = weight(_text_:information in 3433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032569595 = score(doc=3433,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.36800325 = fieldWeight in 3433, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3433)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Despite the development of huge healthcare Web sites and powerful search engines, many searchers end their searches prematurely with incomplete information. Recent studies suggest that users often retrieve incomplete information because of the complex scatter of relevant facts about a topic across Web pages. However, little is understood about regularities underlying such information scatter. To probe regularities within the scatter of facts across Web pages, this article presents the results of two analyses: (a) a cluster analysis of Web pages that reveals the existence of three page clusters that vary in information density and (b) a content analysis that suggests the role each of the above-mentioned page clusters play in providing comprehensive information. These results provide implications for the design of Web sites, search tools, and training to help users find comprehensive information about a topic and for a hypothesis describing the underlying mechanisms causing the scatter. We conclude by briefly discussing how the analysis of information scatter, at the granularity of facts, complements existing theories of information-seeking behavior.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.659-676

0.0063070743 = product of:
  0.025228297 = sum of:
    0.025228297 = weight(_text_:information in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025228297 = score(doc=2134,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 2134, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2134)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Patient portals have the potential to provide content that is specifically tailored to a patient's information needs based on diagnoses and other factors. In this work, we conducted a survey of 41 lung cancer patients at an outpatient lung cancer clinic at the medical center of the University of California, Los Angeles, to gain insight into these perceived information needs and opinions on the design of a portal to fulfill them. We found that patients requested access to information related to diagnosis and imaging, with more than half of the patients reporting that they did not anticipate an increase in anxiety due to access to medical record information via a portal. We also found that patient educational background did not lead to a significant difference in desires for explanations of reports and definitions of terms.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.8, S.1606-1615

0.0056770155 = product of:
  0.022708062 = sum of:
    0.022708062 = weight(_text_:information in 4916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022708062 = score(doc=4916,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 4916, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4916)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many information portals are adding social features with hopes of enhancing the overall user experience. Invitations to join and welcome pages that highlight these social features are expected to encourage use and participation. While this approach is widespread and seems plausible, the effect of providing and highlighting social features remains to be tested. We studied the effects of emphasizing social features on users' response to invitations, their decisions to join, their willingness to provide profile information, and their engagement with the portal's social features. The results of a quasi-experiment found no significant effect of social emphasis in invitations on receivers' responsiveness. However, users receiving invitations highlighting social benefits were less likely to join the portal and provide profile information. Social emphasis in the initial welcome page for the site also was found to have a significant effect on whether individuals joined the portal, how much profile information they provided and shared, and how much they engaged with social features on the site. Unexpectedly, users who were welcomed in a social manner were less likely to join and provided less profile information; they also were less likely to engage with social features of the portal. This suggests that even in online contexts where social activity is an increasingly common feature, highlighting the presence of social features may not always be the optimal presentation strategy.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2106-2120

0.005255895 = product of:
  0.02102358 = sum of:
    0.02102358 = weight(_text_:information in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02102358 = score(doc=178,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Germanic languages / Electronic information resources
Electronic information resources
German language / Electronic information resources

Subject

Germanic languages / Electronic information resources
Electronic information resources
German language / Electronic information resources

0.005255895 = product of:
  0.02102358 = sum of:
    0.02102358 = weight(_text_:information in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02102358 = score(doc=5076,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The rapid rise of Wikipedia as an information source has placed the traditional role of librarians as information gatekeepers and guardians under scrutiny with much of the professional literature suggesting that librarians are polarized over the issue of whether Wikipedia is a useful reference tool. This qualitative study examines the perceptions and behaviours of National Library Board (NLB) of Singapore librarians with regards to information seeking and usage of Wikipedia. It finds that instead of polarized attitudes, most librarians, although cautious about using Wikipedia in their professional capacity, hold a range of generally positive attitudes towards the online encyclopaedia, believing that it has a valid role to play in the information seeking of patrons today. This is heartening because it suggests the existence within the librarian population of attitudes that can be tapped to engage constructively with Wikipedia. Three of these in particular are briefly discussed at the end of the article: Wikipedia's ability to appeal to the socalled "digital natives," its role as a source of non-Western information, and its potential to enable a revitalization of the role of librarians as public intellectuals contributing to a democratic information commons.

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4085,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4085, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4085)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

History / Electronic information resources
Libraries / Electronic information resources

Subject

History / Electronic information resources
Libraries / Electronic information resources

0.0051229675 = product of:
  0.02049187 = sum of:
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=1821,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1821, 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=1821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.004855188 = product of:
  0.019420752 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=1737,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1737, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1737)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 66(2015) H.1, S.10-16

0.0042914203 = product of:
  0.017165681 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 4080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=4080,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4080, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4080)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das Web 2.0 hat einen Paradigmenwechsel im Umgang mit Informationen und damit eng verbunden im Wissenserwerb eingeleitet. Theoretisch gesehen hat jeder offenen Zugang zu vielfältigen Informationen und kann gleichzeitig selbst Inhalte beisteuern - z.B. in Sozialen Netzwerken, in Weblogs oder Wikis - und Websites oder andere Dokumente (Videos, Slideshows o.ä.) veröffentlichen und mit anderen Nutzern teilen. Dieser Demokratisierungsprozess von Wissensproduktion, -kommunikation und -erwerb ist allerdings nicht frei von Kontroversen. Das verstärkte Nebeneinander von sachlich richtiger und relevanter Information einerseits und Belanglosigkeiten andererseits ruft auch Gegner auf den Plan. Sie sprechen von einem Information Overkill und befürchten den Niedergang der klassischen Bildung. Führen freie Wissenszugänge im Netz tatsächlich zu weniger Bildung? Was macht eine Website zu einer zuverlässigen und vertrauenswürdigen Quelle? Wie können aus der Fülle von Webressourcen die qualitativ hochwertigen herausgefiltert werden? Welchen Beitrag kann dabei Social Software leisten? Welches sind die Konstituenten einer Informationskompetenz 2.0, über die User verfügen sollten, um mit vorgefundenen Ressourcen adäquat umgehen zu können? Und inwiefern sind Bibliotheken - die sich ja zunehmend als Teaching Libraries verstehen - hier gefordert? Auf diese Fragen versucht das vorliegende Buch Antworten zu geben. Der Fokus liegt auf dem Umgang mit Wissensressourcen im Web 2.0, wobei ebenso theoretische wie praktische Implikationen berücksichtigt und ausgewählte Evaluierungsansätze hinsichtlich ihrer praktischen Anwendbarkeit für die User diskutiert werden.

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Information Retrieval / Informationskompetenz

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Information Retrieval / Informationskompetenz

0.0042914203 = product of:
  0.017165681 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=369,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 369, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=369)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study analyzes the search behavior of Dutch-speaking nursing students with a nonnative knowledge of English who searched for information in MEDLINE/PubMed about a specific theme in nursing. We examine whether and to what extent their search efficiency is affected by their language skills. Our task-oriented approach focuses on three stages of the information retrieval process: need articulation, query formulation, and relevance judgment. The test participants completed a pretest questionnaire, which gave us information about their overall experience with the search system and their self-reported computer and language skills. The students were briefly introduced to the use of PubMed and MeSH (medical subject headings) before they conducted their keyword-driven subject search. We assessed the search results in terms of recall and precision, and also analyzed the search process. After the search task, a satisfaction survey and a language test were completed. We conclude that language skills have an impact on the search results. We hypothesize that language support might improve the efficiency of searches conducted by Dutch-speaking users of PubMed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.8, S.1538-1552

0.0042914203 = product of:
  0.017165681 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=734)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried

0.00424829 = product of:
  0.01699316 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 4722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=4722,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4722, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4722)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Information resources

Subject

Information resources