Search (833 results, page 42 of 42)

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.1, S.3-23

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1201, 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=1201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.1, S.43-58

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.2, S.115-131

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1206, 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=1206)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.2, S.132-151

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1208, 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=1208)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.2, S.188-197

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"I can't presume to know how other catalogers view the systems, information resources, and institutions with which they engage on a daily basis. David Paton gives us a glimpse in this issue of the affective experiences of bibliographers and catalogers of artists' books in South Africa, and it is clear that the emotional range among them is wide. What I can say is that catalogers' feelings and worldviews, whatever they may be, give the library its shape. I think we can agree that the librarians who constructed the Library of Congress Classification around 1900, Melvil Dewey, and the many classifiers around the world past and present, have had particular sets of desires around control and access and order. We all are asked to submit to those desires in our library work, as well as our own pursuit of knowledge and pleasure reading. And every decision regarding the aboutness of a book, or about where to place it within a particular discipline, takes place in a cataloger's affective and experiential world. While the classification provides the outlines, the catalogers color in the spaces with the books, based on their own readings of the book descriptions and their interpretations of the classification scheme. The decisions they make and the structures to which they are bound affect the circulation of books and their readers across the library. Indeed, some of the encounters will be unexpected, strange, frustrating, frightening, shame-inducing, awe-inspiring, and/or delightful. The emotional experiences of students described in Mabee and Fancher's article, as well as those of any visitor to the library, are all affected by classificatory design. One concern is that a library's ordering principles may reinforce or heighten already existing feelings of precarity or marginality. Because the classifications are hidden from patrons' view, it is difficult to measure the way the order affects a person's mind and body. That a person does not consciously register the associations does not mean that they are not affected."

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop a model for automated classification of old digitised texts to the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), using machine-learning methods. Design/methodology/approach The general research approach is inherent to design science research, in which the problem of UDC assignment of the old, digitised texts is addressed by developing a machine-learning classification model. A corpus of 70,000 scholarly texts, fully bibliographically processed by librarians, was used to train and test the model, which was used for classification of old texts on a corpus of 200,000 items. Human experts evaluated the performance of the model. Findings Results suggest that machine-learning models can correctly assign the UDC at some level for almost any scholarly text. Furthermore, the model can be recommended for the UDC assignment of older texts. Ten librarians corroborated this on 150 randomly selected texts. Research limitations/implications The main limitations of this study were unavailability of labelled older texts and the limited availability of librarians. Practical implications The classification model can provide a recommendation to the librarians during their classification work; furthermore, it can be implemented as an add-on to full-text search in the library databases. Social implications The proposed methodology supports librarians by recommending UDC classifiers, thus saving time in their daily work. By automatically classifying older texts, digital libraries can provide a better user experience by enabling structured searches. These contribute to making knowledge more widely available and useable. Originality/value These findings contribute to the field of automated classification of bibliographical information with the usage of full texts, especially in cases in which the texts are old, unstructured and in which archaic language and vocabulary are used.

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.9, S.1099-1112

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Schon die Überschrift des Statements von Steve Patriarca belegt, dass die Anhänger der "Informationskompetenz" (Information Literacy) nach wie vor von der einfachen und naiven Annahme ausgehen, dass die reine Verfügbarkeit von "Informationskompetenz" ausreicht, um "uns die Werkzeuge" zu geben, "Quellen zu prüfen und Tatsachenbehauptungen zu verifizieren". Ohne nochmals gebetsmühlenartig die Argumente gegen eine "allgemeingültige Informationskompetenz" zu wiederholen, die es als eigenständige "Kompetenz" nicht geben kann (siehe die letzten Stellungnahmen zu diesem Unbegriff in Open Password Nr. 682, 691, 759, 960, 963, 965, 971, 979 usw.), und zudem auf die dort eingebundenen Sichten der Nachbarwissenschaften (Neurowissenschaften, Kommunikationswissenschaft usw.) zu diesem unguten Terminus der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft zu verweisen, sei hier lediglich kurz klargestellt:

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=625)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Der MeSH ist ein polyhierarchisches, konzeptbasiertes Schlagwortregister für biomedizinische Fachbegriffe umfasst das Vokabular, welches in den NLM-Datenbanken, beispielsweise MEDLINE oder PubMed, erscheint. Er wird jährlich aktualisiert von der U. S. National Library of Medicine herausgegeben. Für die deutschsprachige Fassung übersetzt ZB MED dann die jeweils neu hinzugekommenen Terme und ergänzt sie um zusätzliche Synonyme. Erstmalig erstellte ZB MED den Deutschen MeSH im Jahr 2020. Vorher lag die Verantwortung beim Deutschen Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI/BfArM)."

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Literature review articles are essential to summarize the related work in the selected field. However, covering all related studies takes too much time and effort. This study questions how Artificial Intelligence can be used in this process. We used ChatGPT to create a literature review article to show the stage of the OpenAI ChatGPT artificial intelligence application. As the subject, the applications of Digital Twin in the health field were chosen. Abstracts of the last three years (2020, 2021 and 2022) papers were obtained from the keyword "Digital twin in healthcare" search results on Google Scholar and paraphrased by ChatGPT. Later on, we asked ChatGPT questions. The results are promising; however, the paraphrased parts had significant matches when checked with the Ithenticate tool. This article is the first attempt to show the compilation and expression of knowledge will be accelerated with the help of artificial intelligence. We are still at the beginning of such advances. The future academic publishing process will require less human effort, which in turn will allow academics to focus on their studies. In future studies, we will monitor citations to this study to evaluate the academic validity of the content produced by the ChatGPT. 1. Introduction OpenAI ChatGPT (ChatGPT, 2022) is a chatbot based on the OpenAI GPT-3 language model. It is designed to generate human-like text responses to user input in a conversational context. OpenAI ChatGPT is trained on a large dataset of human conversations and can be used to create responses to a wide range of topics and prompts. The chatbot can be used for customer service, content creation, and language translation tasks, creating replies in multiple languages. OpenAI ChatGPT is available through the OpenAI API, which allows developers to access and integrate the chatbot into their applications and systems. OpenAI ChatGPT is a variant of the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) language model developed by OpenAI. It is designed to generate human-like text, allowing it to engage in conversation with users naturally and intuitively. OpenAI ChatGPT is trained on a large dataset of human conversations, allowing it to understand and respond to a wide range of topics and contexts. It can be used in various applications, such as chatbots, customer service agents, and language translation systems. OpenAI ChatGPT is a state-of-the-art language model able to generate coherent and natural text that can be indistinguishable from text written by a human. As an artificial intelligence, ChatGPT may need help to change academic writing practices. However, it can provide information and guidance on ways to improve people's academic writing skills.

0.0015019972 = product of:
  0.006007989 = sum of:
    0.006007989 = weight(_text_:information in 717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006007989 = score(doc=717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=717)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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