Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.082749 = product of:
  0.165498 = sum of:
    0.12226046 = weight(_text_:fields in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12226046 = score(doc=248,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38684773 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Researchers are producing an unprecedented deluge of data by using new methods and instrumentation. Others may wish to mine these data for new discoveries and innovations. However, research data are not readily available as sharing is common in only a few fields such as astronomy and genomics. Data sharing practices in other fields vary widely. Moreover, research data take many forms, are handled in many ways, using many approaches, and often are difficult to interpret once removed from their initial context. Data sharing is thus a conundrum. Four rationales for sharing data are examined, drawing examples from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities: (1) to reproduce or to verify research, (2) to make results of publicly funded research available to the public, (3) to enable others to ask new questions of extant data, and (4) to advance the state of research and innovation. These rationales differ by the arguments for sharing, by beneficiaries, and by the motivations and incentives of the many stakeholders involved. The challenges are to understand which data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects. Answers will inform data policy and practice.

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=239)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A 5-year project to study scientific data uses in geography, starting in 1999, evolved into 20 years of research on data practices in sensor networks, environmental sciences, biology, seismology, undersea science, biomedicine, astronomy, and other fields. By emulating the "team science" approaches of the scientists studied, the UCLA Center for Knowledge Infrastructures accumulated a comprehensive collection of qualitative data about how scientists generate, manage, use, and reuse data across domains. Building upon Paul N. Edwards's model of "making global data"-collecting signals via consistent methods, technologies, and policies-to "make data global"-comparing and integrating those data, the research team has managed and exploited these data as a collaborative resource. This article reflects on the social, technical, organizational, economic, and policy challenges the team has encountered in creating new knowledge from data old and new. We reflect on continuity over generations of students and staff, transitions between grants, transfer of legacy data between software tools, research methods, and the role of professional data managers in the social sciences.

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5507)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.010809385 = product of:
  0.04323754 = sum of:
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=5325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5325, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5325)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 7.2019 11:58:22

0.008647508 = product of:
  0.034590032 = sum of:
    0.034590032 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034590032 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22