Search (722 results, page 1 of 37)

0.07319862 = product of:
  0.14639723 = sum of:
    0.14639723 = sum of:
      0.07710736 = weight(_text_:2006 in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07710736 = score(doc=1699,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.3882939 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
      0.06928988 = weight(_text_:22 in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06928988 = score(doc=1699,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Mit Inkrafttreten des Gesetzes über die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNBG) am 23. Juni 2006 ist ein neuer Auftrag zu den bisherigen Aufgaben hinzugekommen: Die Sammlung, Erschließung, Archivierung und Bereitstellung von Online-Publikationen. Die Bedingungen, unter denen diese gesammelt werden, und die Einschränkungen, die sich durch automatisierte Sammelverfahren ergeben, werden in der Pflichtablieferungsverordnung - PflAV vom 17. Oktober 2008 konkretisiert.

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 22(2010) H.1, S.20-22

0.05516993 = product of:
  0.11033986 = sum of:
    0.11033986 = sum of:
      0.067468934 = weight(_text_:2006 in 3727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067468934 = score(doc=3727,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.33975714 = fieldWeight in 3727, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3727)
      0.042870924 = weight(_text_:22 in 3727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042870924 = score(doc=3727,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3727, 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=3727)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dieses Papier diskutiert die allgemeinen Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet der Wissenskommunikation. Bereits die Betrachtung der informations- und wissensorganisatorischen Techniken lassen einige Folgerungen für den künftig zu erwartenden Wissensaustausch und seine Formalisierung ziehen. Auch wurden künftige Aspekte der Wissensorganisation und -kommunikation im Rahmen von Panels bei der Deutschen ISKO-Konferenz 2006 in Wien und in 2007 auf der IKONE-Konferenz in Bangalore sowie bei der WissKom 2007 in Jülich diskutiert. Hieraus und aus Betrachtungen zu den neuen medialen Techniken werden Folgerungen für zu erwartende und zu empfehlende künftige Entwicklungen gezogen.

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.053846065 = product of:
  0.10769213 = sum of:
    0.10769213 = product of:
      0.43076852 = sum of:
        0.43076852 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.43076852 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38323373 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045203257 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.04958384 = product of:
  0.09916768 = sum of:
    0.09916768 = product of:
      0.39667073 = sum of:
        0.39667073 = weight(_text_:h46 in 4126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39667073 = score(doc=4126,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.47907656 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045203257 = queryNorm
            0.82799023 = fieldWeight in 4126, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4126)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

ZA3075 .H46 2010

LCC

ZA3075 .H46 2010

0.047288515 = product of:
  0.09457703 = sum of:
    0.09457703 = sum of:
      0.05783052 = weight(_text_:2006 in 4062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05783052 = score(doc=4062,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.29122043 = fieldWeight in 4062, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4062)
      0.036746506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036746506 = score(doc=4062,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4062, 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=4062)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An African Studies Thesaurus was constructed for the purpose of subject indexing and retrieval in the Library of the African Studies Centre (ASC) in Leiden in 2001-2006. A word-based system was considered a more user-friendly alternative to the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) codes which were used for subject access in the ASC catalogue at the time. In the process of thesaurus construction UDC codes were used as a starting point. In addition, when constructing the thesaurus, each descriptor was also assigned a UDC code from the recent edition of the UDC Master Reference File (MRF), thus replacing many of the old UDC codes used by then, some of which dated from the 1952 French edition. The presence of the UDC codes in the thesaurus leaves open the possibility of linking the thesaurus to different language versions of the UDC MRF in the future. In a parallel but separate operation each UDC code which had been assigned to an item in the library's catalogue was subsequently converted into one or more thesaurus descriptors.

Date

22. 7.2010 19:48:33

0.047288515 = product of:
  0.09457703 = sum of:
    0.09457703 = sum of:
      0.05783052 = weight(_text_:2006 in 4560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05783052 = score(doc=4560,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.29122043 = fieldWeight in 4560, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4560)
      0.036746506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036746506 = score(doc=4560,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4560, 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=4560)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, several procedures (e.g., measurements, information retrieval analyses, power law, association rules, hierarchical clustering) are introduced which were made on a pilot digital library. Information retrievals of web users from 01/01/2003 to 01/01/2006 on the internal search engine of the pilot digital library have been analyzed. With the power law method of data processing, a constant information retrieval pattern has been established, stable over a longer period of time. After this, the data have been analyzed. On the basis of the accomplished measurements and analyses, a series of mental models of web users for global (educational) purposes have been developed (e.g., the metamodel of thought hierarchy of web users, the segmentation model of web users), and the users were profiled in four different groups (adventurers, observers, applicable, and know-alls). The article concludes with the construction of a new knowledge management solution called multidimensional rank thesaurus.

Date

13. 7.2011 14:47:22

0.047288515 = product of:
  0.09457703 = sum of:
    0.09457703 = sum of:
      0.05783052 = weight(_text_:2006 in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05783052 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.29122043 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
      0.036746506 = weight(_text_:22 in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036746506 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 93, 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=93)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper is about search of photos in photo databases of agencies which sell photos over the Internet. The problem is far from the behavior of photo databases managed by librarians and also far from the corpora generally used for research purposes. The descriptions use mainly single words and it is well known that it is not the best way to have a good search. This increases the problem of semantic ambiguity. This problem of semantic ambiguity is crucial for cross-language querying. On the other hand, users are not aware of documentation techniques and use generally very simple queries but want to get precise answers. This paper gives the experience gained in a 3 year use (2006-2008) of a cross-language access to several of the main international commercial photo databases. The languages used were French, English, and German.

Date

17. 4.2012 14:25:22

0.047288515 = product of:
  0.09457703 = sum of:
    0.09457703 = sum of:
      0.05783052 = weight(_text_:2006 in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05783052 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.29122043 = fieldWeight in 4652, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4652)
      0.036746506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036746506 = score(doc=4652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4652, 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=4652)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The system is available both in print and online versions. Names a few new subject headings in areas like science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM). In this edition, there are a total of 1,600 new headings making it a total of 12,000+ preferred headings meant for subject access in small and medium sized libraries. This unprecedented increase of about 1,600 headings is mostly due the complete incorporation of the Canadian Sears last published independently in 2006. Also critically examines inconsistencies in a few headings. Concludes to say the new edition in resplendent, hard binding maintains its stellar reputation of a handy list of general subject headings both for applications and a teaching resource.

Date

21.12.2018 18:22:12

0.045749135 = product of:
  0.09149827 = sum of:
    0.09149827 = sum of:
      0.0481921 = weight(_text_:2006 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0481921 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.24268368 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
      0.043306172 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043306172 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous studies of user-generated vocabularies (e.g., Golder & Huberman, 2006; Munk & Mork, 2007b; Yoon, 2009) have proposed that a primary source of tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of tags at the basic level of abstraction. However, an investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies did not support this notion. This study analyzed approximately 8000 tags generated by 40 subjects. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned to 36 online resources representing four content categories (TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) and three resource genres (news article, blog, ecommerce) did not find statistically significant preferences in the assignment of tags at the superordinate, subordinate or basic levels of abstraction. Within the framework of Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness , observed variations in the preferred level of abstraction are both natural and phenomenological in that perception and understanding -- and thus the meaning of "things" -- arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects. Operationalization of superordinate, subordinate and basic levels of abstraction using Heidegger's notion of handiness may be able to account for differences in the everyday experiences and activities of taggers, thereby leading to a better understanding of user-generated tagging vocabularies.

Date

5. 9.2014 16:22:27

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.044871725 = product of:
  0.08974345 = sum of:
    0.08974345 = product of:
      0.3589738 = sum of:
        0.3589738 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3589738 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38323373 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045203257 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.03993264 = product of:
  0.07986528 = sum of:
    0.07986528 = sum of:
      0.058429815 = weight(_text_:2006 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058429815 = score(doc=3807,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.29423833 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.021435462 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021435462 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Academic authors tend to define terms that meet their own needs. Knowledge Management (KM) is a term that comes to mind and is examined in this study. Lexicographical research identified KM terms used by authors from 1996 to 2006 in academic outlets to define KM. Data were collected based on strict criteria which included that definitions should be unique instances. From 2006 onwards, these authors could not identify new unique instances of definitions with repetitive usage of such definition instances. Analysis revealed that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, and Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The aim of this paper is to add to the body of knowledge in the KM discipline and supply KM practitioners and scholars with insight into what is commonly regarded to be KM so as to reignite the debate on what one could consider as KM. The lexicon used by KM scholars was evaluated though the application of lexicographical research methods as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods. Findings By simplifying term relationships through the application of lexicographical research methods, as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods, it was found that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). One would therefore be able to indicate that KM, from an academic point of view, refers to people processing contextualised content.
Research limitations/implications In total, 42 definitions were identified spanning a period of 11 years. This represented the first use of KM through the estimated apex of terms used. From 2006 onwards definitions were used in repetition, and all definitions that were considered to repeat were therefore subsequently excluded as not being unique instances. All definitions listed are by no means complete and exhaustive. The definitions are viewed outside the scope and context in which they were originally formulated and then used to review the key concepts in the definitions themselves. Social implications When the authors refer to the aforementioned discussion of KM content as well as the presentation of the method followed in this paper, the authors may have a few implications for future research in KM. First the research validates ideas presented by the OECD in 2005 pertaining to KM. It also validates that through the evolution of KM, the authors ended with a description of KM that may be seen as a standardised description. If the authors as academics and practitioners, for example, refer to KM as the same construct and/or idea, it has the potential to speculatively, distinguish between what KM may or may not be. Originality/value By simplifying the term used to define KM, by focusing on the most common definitions, the paper assist in refocusing KM by reconsidering the dimensions that is the most common in how it has been defined over time. This would hopefully assist in reigniting discussions about KM and how it may be used to the benefit of an organisation.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.039407093 = product of:
  0.078814186 = sum of:
    0.078814186 = sum of:
      0.0481921 = weight(_text_:2006 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0481921 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.24268368 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
      0.03062209 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03062209 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the keynote paper for the 12th International ISKO Conference in Mysore I discussed the dynamicity of the domain of knowledge organization from the perspective of ongoing domain analyses. Metaanalysis of a series of studies shows that knowledge organization is a strong, scientific community, with a distinct extension that now embraces the search for interoperability, and with intension that shifts along two continuums, one of which is methodological (or epistemological) and ranges from empirical experimental methods to humanistic narrative methods, while the other is more contextual and ranges from concept theory to applied KOS. These elements seem to remain core in knowledge organization as a domain over time (Smiraglia 2012). Another interesting finding is the degree to which the intension along that theory-application continuum is stretched by papers presented at regional ISKO chapter conferences. Since 2006 it has been the policy of this journal to offer to publish the leading papers from any peer-reviewed regional ISKO conference. The papers are selected by conference organizers and forwarded to Knowledge Organization for publication. By analyzing the papers separately we are able to see both the presence of the domain's core internationally and the constant tug and pull on the intension as authors bring new ideas and new research to regional conferences. This editorial, then, summarizes papers from regional conferences that have appeared in Knowledge Organization in 2011 and 2012.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:09:49

0.039407093 = product of:
  0.078814186 = sum of:
    0.078814186 = sum of:
      0.0481921 = weight(_text_:2006 in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0481921 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.24268368 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
      0.03062209 = weight(_text_:22 in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03062209 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1622, 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=1622)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to engage in a systematic analysis of academic research that relies on the collection and use of Twitter data, creating topology of Twitter research that details the disciplines and methods of analysis, amount of tweets and users under analysis, the methods used to collect Twitter data, and accounts of ethical considerations related to these projects. Design/methodology/approach - Content analysis of 382 academic publications from 2006 to 2012 that used Twitter as their primary platform for data collection and analysis. Findings - The analysis of over 380 scholarly publications utilizing Twitter data reveals noteworthy trends related to the growth of Twitter-based research overall, the disciplines engaged in such research, the methods of acquiring Twitter data for analysis, and emerging ethical considerations of such research. Research limitations/implications - The findings provide a benchmark analysis that must be updated with the continued growth of Twitter-based research. Originality/value - The research is the first full-text systematic analysis of Twitter-based research projects, focussing on the growth in discipline and methods as well as its ethical implications. It is of value for the broader research community currently engaged in social media-based research, and will prompt reflexive evaluation of what research is occurring, how it is occurring, what is being done with Twitter data, and how researchers are addressing the ethics of Twitter-based research.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.039407093 = product of:
  0.078814186 = sum of:
    0.078814186 = sum of:
      0.0481921 = weight(_text_:2006 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0481921 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.24268368 = fieldWeight in 4178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4178)
      0.03062209 = weight(_text_:22 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03062209 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4178, 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=4178)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Als Selbstverwaltungsorganisation und Interessenvertretung der Wissenschaft sieht die DFG es als ihre Aufgabe an, den digitalen Wandel in den Wissenschaften aktiv mitzugestalten. Die Förderung im Bereich der Informationsinfrastrukturen erfolgt mit dem Anspruch, sich an einem von der Wissenschaft formulierten Bedarf zu orientieren, der anhaltend hohen Veränderungsdynamik gerecht zu werden, für unkonventionelle Projektideen sowie Projekte in einem explorativen Stadium offen zu sein und impulsgebend sowie struktur- und standardbildend zu wirken. Mit diesem Positionspapier reflektiert die DFG - nach 2006 und 2012 - zum dritten Mal die Folgen des digitalen Wandels für ihr Förderhandeln im Bereich der wissenschaftlichen Informationsinfrastrukturen. Erarbeitet wurde das Papier vom Ausschuss für Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken und Informationssysteme, dem für die Förderung wissenschaftlicher Informationsinfrastrukturen fachlich zuständigen Gremium. Der AWBI ist im Rahmen seiner Zuständigkeit als Gremium des Hauptausschusses verantwortlich für die Ausgestaltung des Förderportfolios sowie einzelner Förderinitiativen im Bereich der wissenschaftlichen Informationsinfrastrukturen.

Date

22. 3.2018 17:30:43

0.03407696 = product of:
  0.06815392 = sum of:
    0.06815392 = product of:
      0.13630784 = sum of:
        0.13630784 = weight(_text_:2006 in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13630784 = score(doc=1259,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045203257 = queryNorm
            0.6864131 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study continues a long history of author cocitation analysis (and more recently, author bibliographic coupling analysis) of the intellectual structure of information science (IS) into the time period 2006 to 2010 (IS 2006-2010). We find that web technologies continue to drive developments, especially at the research front, although perhaps more indirectly than before. A broadening of perspectives is visible in IS 2006-2010, where network science becomes influential and where full-text analysis methods complement traditional computer science influences. Research in the areas of the h-index and mapping of science appears to have been highlights of IS 2006-2011. This study tests and confirms a forecast made previously by comparing knowledge-base and research-front findings for IS 2001-2005, which expected both the information retrieval (IR) systems and webometrics specialties to shrink in 2006 to 2010. A corresponding comparison of the knowledge base and research front of IS 2006-2010 suggests a continuing decline of the IR systems specialty in the near future, but also a considerable (re)growth of the webometrics area after a period of decline from 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010, with the latter due perhaps in part to its contribution to an emerging web science.

0.031525675 = product of:
  0.06305135 = sum of:
    0.06305135 = sum of:
      0.03855368 = weight(_text_:2006 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03855368 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.19414695 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
      0.024497671 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024497671 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, 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=1450)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.031410206 = product of:
  0.06282041 = sum of:
    0.06282041 = product of:
      0.25128165 = sum of:
        0.25128165 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25128165 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38323373 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045203257 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.029632803 = product of:
  0.059265606 = sum of:
    0.059265606 = sum of:
      0.040892355 = weight(_text_:2006 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040892355 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19857989 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.20592394 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.393044 = idf(docFreq=1485, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.018373253 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018373253 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15829411 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045203257 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.026923032 = product of:
  0.053846065 = sum of:
    0.053846065 = product of:
      0.21538426 = sum of:
        0.21538426 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21538426 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38323373 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045203257 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.026923032 = product of:
  0.053846065 = sum of:
    0.053846065 = product of:
      0.21538426 = sum of:
        0.21538426 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21538426 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38323373 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045203257 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.