Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Zhang, L."
  1. Zhang, L.: ¬The knowledge organization education within and beyond the master of library and information science (2023) 0.06
    0.058279987 = product of:
      0.17483996 = sum of:
        0.06475023 = weight(_text_:english in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06475023 = score(doc=1127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21787451 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.2971905 = fieldWeight in 1127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1127)
        0.11008973 = weight(_text_:speaking in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11008973 = score(doc=1127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2840921 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.014756 = idf(docFreq=107, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.3875142 = fieldWeight in 1127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.014756 = idf(docFreq=107, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1127)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    By analyzing 63 English-speaking institutions that offer ALA-accredited master's programs in library and information studies, this research aims to explore the education for knowl­edge organization (KO) at different levels and across fields. This research examines the KO courses that are the required courses and elective courses in the MLIS programs, that are offered in other master's programs and graduate certificate programs, that are adapted to the undergraduate degree and certificate programs, and that are particularly developed for programs other than MLIS. The findings indicate that the great majority of MLIS programs still have a focus on or a significant component of knowl­edge organization as their required course and include the knowl­edge organization elective courses, particularly library cataloging and classification, on their curriculum. However, there is a variety of the offerings of KO related courses across the programs in an institution or in the same program across the institutions. It shows a promising trend that the traditional and new KO courses play an important role in many other programs, at different levels and across fields. With the conventional, adapted, or innovative content, these courses demonstrate that the principles and skills of knowl­edge organization are applicable to a wide variety of settings, can be integrated with other disciplinary knowl­edge and emerging technologies, and meet the needs of different career pathways and groups of learners.
  2. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Document-type country profiles (2011) 0.01
    0.008952616 = product of:
      0.05371569 = sum of:
        0.05371569 = product of:
          0.10743138 = sum of:
            0.10743138 = weight(_text_:countries in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10743138 = score(doc=4487,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04049921 = queryNorm
                0.48421675 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.
  3. Lai, M.-S.; Fan, Z.; Zhang, L.: ¬The development, current state, and effects of community informatization in mainland China : dreaming scientific order at the fin de siècle (2013) 0.01
    0.007833539 = product of:
      0.04700123 = sum of:
        0.04700123 = product of:
          0.09400246 = sum of:
            0.09400246 = weight(_text_:countries in 5554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09400246 = score(doc=5554,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04049921 = queryNorm
                0.42368966 = fieldWeight in 5554, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5554)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    In recent years, community informatization initiatives have developed throughout mainland China. The meaning of "community informatization" in China is similar to "community informatics" in the U.S. This paper aims to investigate the current state of community informatization in mainland China-with a focus on best practices, major challenges, patterns of development, developing trends, and effects. Comparing the theory and practice of China's community informatization to community informatics in other countries, especially in the U.S. and Europe, this paper asks: can government-sponsored or independent informatization efforts bridge the digital divide and help China realize digital-or information-equity?
  4. Kulczycki, E.; Huang, Y.; Zuccala, A.A.; Engels, T.C.E.; Ferrara, A.; Guns, R.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.; Taskin, Z.; Zhang, L.: Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe (2022) 0.01
    0.005595384 = product of:
      0.033572305 = sum of:
        0.033572305 = product of:
          0.06714461 = sum of:
            0.06714461 = weight(_text_:countries in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06714461 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04049921 = queryNorm
                0.30263546 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey-and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top-tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top-tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top-tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top-tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric-informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs.
  5. Zhang, L.; Pan, Y.; Zhang, T.: Focused named entity recognition using machine learning (2004) 0.01
    0.005487084 = product of:
      0.032922503 = sum of:
        0.032922503 = product of:
          0.065845005 = sum of:
            0.065845005 = weight(_text_:22 in 4086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.065845005 = score(doc=4086,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04049921 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4086, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4086)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    15.10.2005 19:57:22
  6. Zhang, L.: Grasping the structure of journal articles : utilizing the functions of information units (2012) 0.00
    0.002743542 = product of:
      0.016461251 = sum of:
        0.016461251 = product of:
          0.032922503 = sum of:
            0.032922503 = weight(_text_:22 in 65) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032922503 = score(doc=65,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04049921 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 65, 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=65)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:43:22
  7. Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023) 0.00
    0.0022862852 = product of:
      0.013717711 = sum of:
        0.013717711 = product of:
          0.027435422 = sum of:
            0.027435422 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027435422 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04049921 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:40:36