Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047313843 = product of:
  0.094627686 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=2343,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2343, 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=2343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Report of a survey 96 (out of 119) US and Canadian member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to determine their use of on-line and CD-ROM data bases, including OPACs. 4 catalogues were identified: on-line mediated searching (97%); CD-ROMs (96%); end-user on-line searching (45%); and locally mounted magnetic tapes (37,5%). The latter option is expected to be the most widely used option in the new future. Although CD-ROM caused some migration from on-line, most migration was from printed sources to CD-ROM. Tables show: on-line hosts most used for intermediary on-line searching; on-line data bases most after searched by intermediaries; end user on-line systems offered by most libraries; the 20 most popular CD-ROM data bases; and the 8 magnetic tape data bases accessible on OPACs

Source

Online. 16(1992) no.2, S.22-28

0.02586502 = product of:
  0.10346008 = sum of:
    0.10346008 = weight(_text_:data in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10346008 = score(doc=1195,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.69872105 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines how scientists working in government agencies in the U.S. are reacting to the "ethos of sharing" government-generated data. For scientists to leverage the value of existing government data sets, critical data sets must be identified and made as widely available as possible. However, government data sets can only be leveraged when policy makers first assess the value of data, in much the same way they decide the value of grants for research outside government. We argue that legislators should also remove structural barriers to interoperability by funding technical infrastructure according to issue clusters rather than administrative programs. As developers attempt to make government data more accessible through portals, they should consider a range of other nontechnical constraints attached to the data. We find that agencies react to the large number of constraints by mostly posting their data on their own websites only rather than in data portals that can facilitate sharing. Despite the nontechnical constraints, we find that scientists working in government agencies exercise some autonomy in data decisions, such as data documentation, which determine whether or not the data can be widely shared. Fortunately, scientists indicate a willingness to share the data they collect or maintain. However, we argue further that a complete measure of access should also consider the normative decisions to collect (or not) particular data.

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Three questions - what can be studied; how can studies be done; and what can be measured - drive research methods and help to identify information metrics for user studies. User studies can investigate user needs, search strategies, or preferences. Observing and asking, the two main methods for conducting user studies, yield quantitative and qualitative data through studying patterns of behavior and insights into motivation. ciber (Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, City University, London) is in a good position to continue supporting information user behavior studies that use a variety of methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative data and help establish consistent metrics.

0.012717713 = product of:
  0.05087085 = sum of:
    0.05087085 = product of:
      0.1017417 = sum of:
        0.1017417 = weight(_text_:processing in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1017417 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.53671354 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.2, S.229-251

0.0103460075 = product of:
  0.04138403 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 8359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=8359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 8359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8359)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Online offers the advantage over CD-ROM and locally loaded databases of being able to search several databases simultaneously. However, even when different databases have common fields, they may be named differently. This is improving, particularly throught he efforts of Mead Data Central and DIALOG. Discusses searching single databases; 2 ways in which online systems standardise fields; the lack of standardisation in the field tag SF=; Dialog's standardisation; generic field designs; standardisation of field content and NEXIS and uniform segmentation

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=1911,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 1911, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1911)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This article aims to focus on usage data in respect to full-text downloads of journal articles, which is considered an important usage (satisfaction) metric by librarians and publishers. The purpose is to evaluate the evidence regarding full-text viewing by pooling together data on the full-text viewing of tens of thousands of users studied as part of a number of investigations of e-journal databases conducted during the Virtual Scholar research programme. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the web logs of a number of electronic journal libraries including OhioLINK and ScienceDirect using Deep Log Analysis, which is a more sophisticated form of transactional log analysis. The frequency, characteristics and diversity of full-text viewing are examined. The article also features an investigation into the time spent online viewing full-text articles in order to get a clearer understanding of the significance of full-text viewing, especially in regard to reading. Findings - The main findings are that there is a great deal of variety amongst scholars in their full-text viewing habits and that a large proportion of views are very cursory in nature, although there is survey evidence to suggest that reading goes on offline. Originality/value - This is the first time that full-text viewing evidence is studied on such a large scale.

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=2960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - By tracking the information-seeking and reading patterns of science, technology, medical and social science faculty members from 1977 to the present, this paper seeks to examine how faculty members locate, obtain, read, and use scholarly articles and how this has changed with the widespread availability of electronic journals and journal alternatives. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using questionnaire surveys of university faculty and other researchers periodically since 1977. Many questions used the critical incident of the last article reading to allow analysis of the characteristics of readings in addition to characteristics of readers. Findings - The paper finds that the average number of readings per year per science faculty member continues to increase, while the average time spent per reading is decreasing. Electronic articles now account for the majority of readings, though most readings are still printed on paper for final reading. Scientists report reading a higher proportion of older articles from a wider range of journal titles and more articles from library e-collections. Articles are read for many purposes and readings are valuable to those purposes. Originality/value - The paper draws on data collected in a consistent way over 30 years. It provides a unique look at how electronic journals and other developments have influenced changes in reading behavior over three decades. The use of critical incidence provides evidence of the value of reading in addition to reading patterns.

0.007850879 = product of:
  0.031403515 = sum of:
    0.031403515 = product of:
      0.06280703 = sum of:
        0.06280703 = weight(_text_:22 in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06280703 = score(doc=5170,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.4, S.22-28

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 6700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=6700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 6700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6700)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Database usage data from a random sample of academic and public libraries in the U.S. and Canada reveals patterns of use in selected types of libraries. Library users in both public and academic libraries tend to use commercial online databases most frequently early in the week, mid-day, and at times that correspond to the academic calendar (November in this six-month sample.) The mean number of simultaneous users is correlated with the size of the population served and the number of workstations available, but relatively low numbers of users are simultaneously logged on to research databases at all sizes of libraries. A questionnaire sent to these same libraries identified many other factors that might influence database use, including levels of instruction, availability of remote login, placement of a database on the library's homepage, although none of these factors was found to be statistically significant

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1723)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study into the use of discrete journal-article components, particularly tables and figures extracted from published scientific journal articles, and their application to teaching and research. Sixty participants were introduced to and asked to perform searches in a journal-article component prototype that presents individual tables and figures as the items returned in the search results set. Multiple methods, including questionnaires, observations, and structured diaries, were used to collect data. The results are analyzed in the context of previous studies on the use of scientific journal articles and in terms of research on scientists' use of specific journal-article components to find information, assess its relevance, read, interpret, and disaggregate the information found, and reaggregate components into new forms of information. Results indicate that scientists believe searching for journal-article components has value in terms of (a) higher precision result sets, (b) better match between the granularity of the prototype's index and the granularity of the information sought for particular tasks, and (c) fit between journal-article component searching and the established teaching and research practices of scientists.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This article is an edited version of a report commissioned by the British Library and JISC to identify how the specialist researchers of the future (those born after 1993) are likely to access and interact with digital resources in five to ten years' time. The purpose is to investigate the impact of digital transition on the information behaviour of the Google Generation and to guide library and information services to anticipate and react to any new or emerging behaviours in the most effective way. Design/methodology/approach - The study was virtually longitudinal and is based on a number of extensive reviews of related literature, survey data mining and a deep log analysis of a British Library and a JISC web site intended for younger people. Findings - The study shows that much of the impact of ICTs on the young has been overestimated. The study claims that although young people demonstrate an apparent ease and familiarity with computers, they rely heavily on search engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web. Originality/value - The paper reports on a study that overturns the common assumption that the "Google generation" is the most web-literate.

0.006344468 = product of:
  0.025377871 = sum of:
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=2612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25.11.1995 19:22:01

0.006344468 = product of:
  0.025377871 = sum of:
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=2616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25.11.1995 19:22:01

0.005299047 = product of:
  0.021196188 = sum of:
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.105-121

0.0039652926 = product of:
  0.01586117 = sum of:
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2735, 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=2735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:37