Search (138 results, page 1 of 7)

0.10877442 = product of:
  0.27193606 = sum of:
    0.067984015 = product of:
      0.20395203 = sum of:
        0.20395203 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20395203 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36289233 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.20395203 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20395203 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36289233 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.09064536 = product of:
  0.22661339 = sum of:
    0.056653347 = product of:
      0.16996004 = sum of:
        0.16996004 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16996004 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36289233 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.16996004 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16996004 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36289233 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.0666031 = product of:
  0.16650775 = sum of:
    0.1520094 = weight(_text_:policy in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1520094 = score(doc=1055,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.6623283 = fieldWeight in 1055, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1055)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Journal lists are instruments to categorize, compare, and assess research and scholarly publications. Our study investigates the remarkable proliferation of such journal lists in China, analyses their underlying values, quality criteria and ranking principles, and specifies how concerns specific to the Chinese research policy and publishing system inform these lists. Discouraged lists of "bad journals" reflect concerns over inferior research publications, but also the involved drain on public resources. Endorsed lists of "good journals" are based on criteria valued in research policy, reflecting the distinctive administrative logic of state-led Chinese research and publishing policy, ascribing worth to scientific journals for its specific national and institutional needs. In this regard, the criteria used for journal list construction are contextual and reflect the challenges of public resource allocation in a market-led publication system. Chinese journal lists therefore reflect research policy changes, such as a shift away from output-dominated research evaluation, the specific concerns about research misconduct, and balancing national research needs against international standards, resulting in distinctly Chinese quality criteria. However, contrasting concerns and inaccuracies lead to contradictions in the "qualify" and "disqualify" binary logic and demonstrate inherent tensions and limitations in journal lists as policy tools.

Date

22. 9.2023 16:39:23

0.060183883 = product of:
  0.1504597 = sum of:
    0.13596135 = weight(_text_:policy in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13596135 = score(doc=1017,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.5924045 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1017, 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=1017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper reconsiders the outpacing argument, the belief that changes in law and other means of regulation cannot keep pace with recent changes in technology. We focus on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in and of themselves as well as applied in computer science, telecommunications, health, finance, and other applications, but our argument applies also in rapidly developing technological fields such as environmental science, materials science, and genetic engineering. First, we discuss why the outpacing argument is so closely associated with information and computing technologies. We then outline 12 arguments that support the outpacing argument, by pointing to some particular weaknesses of policy making, using the United States as the primary example. Then arguing in the opposite direction, we present 4 brief and 3 more extended criticisms of the outpacing thesis. The paper's final section responds to calls within the technical community for greater engagement of policy and ethical concerns and reviews the paper's major arguments. While the paper focuses on ICTs and policy making in the United States, our critique of the outpacing argument and our exploration of its complex character are of utility to actors in other political contexts and in other technical fields.

Date

22. 7.2023 13:28:28

0.04973043 = product of:
  0.24865215 = sum of:
    0.24865215 = weight(_text_:great in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24865215 = score(doc=1115,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        1.0316678 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Great Sites are closely related to the residents' life, urban and rural development. In the process of rapid urbanization in China, the protection and utilization of Great Sites are facing unprecedented pressure. Effective knowl­edge organization with ontology and linked data of Great Sites is a prerequisite for their protection and utilization. In this paper, an interview is conducted to understand the users' awareness towards Great Sites to build the user-centered ontology. As for designing the Great Site ontology, firstly, the scope of Great Sites is determined. Secondly, CIDOC- CRM and OWL-Time Ontology are reused combining the results of literature research and user interviews. Thirdly, the top-level structure and the specific instances are determined to extract knowl­edge concepts of Great Sites. Fourthly, they are transformed into classes, data properties and object properties of the Great Site ontology. Later, based on the linked data technology, taking the Great Sites in Xi'an Area as an example, this paper uses D2RQ to publish the linked data set of the knowl­edge of the Great Sites and realize its opening and sharing. Semantic services such as semantic annotation, semantic retrieval and reasoning are provided based on the ontology.

0.04425502 = product of:
  0.110637546 = sum of:
    0.096139185 = weight(_text_:policy in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096139185 = score(doc=180,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose This investigation aims to examine the differences and similarities between activity tracking technology users from two regions (the USA and Germany) in their intended privacy-related behavior. The focus lies on data handling after hypothetical discontinuance of use, data protection and privacy policy seeking, and privacy concerns. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected through an online survey in 2019. In order to identify significant differences between participants from Germany and the USA, the chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test were applied. Findings The intensity of several privacy-related concerns was significantly different between the two groups. The majority of the participants did not inform themselves about the respective data privacy policies or terms and conditions before installing an activity tracking application. The majority of the German participants knew that they could request the deletion of all their collected data. In contrast, only 35% out of 68 participants from the US knew about this option. Research limitations/implications This study intends to raise awareness about managing the collected health and fitness data after stopping to use activity tracking technologies. Furthermore, to reduce privacy and security concerns, the involvement of the government, companies and users is necessary to handle and share data more considerably and in a sustainable way. Originality/value This study sheds light on users of activity tracking technologies from a broad perspective (here, participants from the USA and Germany). It incorporates not only concerns and the privacy paradox but (intended) user behavior, including seeking information on data protection and privacy policy and handling data after hypothetical discontinuance of use of the technology.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.04425502 = product of:
  0.110637546 = sum of:
    0.096139185 = weight(_text_:policy in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096139185 = score(doc=1096,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.03578792 = product of:
  0.0894698 = sum of:
    0.07497144 = weight(_text_:great in 1097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07497144 = score(doc=1097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 1097, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1097)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=1097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1097, 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=1097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Against the background that the top-level semantic framework of Chinese traditional culture is not comprehensive and unified, this study aims to preserve and disseminate cultural heritage information about Chinese traditional culture through the development of a domain ontology which is constructed from ancient books. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches was used to construct the ontology for Chinese traditional culture (CTCO). An investigation of historians' needs, and LDA topic clustering model were conducted, understanding the specific needs of historians, collecting the topic, concepts and relationships. CIDOC CRM was reused to construct the basic framework of CTCO. Ontology structure and function were adopted to evaluate the effectiveness of CTCO. Evaluation results show that the ontology meets all the quality criteria of OntoMetrics, and the experts agreed on content representation (average score = 4.30). CTCO contributes to the organization of traditional Chinese culture and the construction of related databases. The study also forms a common path and puts forward proposals for the construction of domain ontology, which has great social relevance.

Source

Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.1, S.22 - 39

0.032991614 = product of:
  0.08247904 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify key countries and their focal research fields on the information divide. Design/methodology/approach Literature was retrieved to identify key countries and their primary focus. The literature research method was adopted to identify aspects of the primary focus in each key country. Findings The key countries with literature on the information divide are the USA, China, the UK and India. The problem of health is prominent in the USA, and solutions include providing information, distinguishing users' profiles and improving eHealth literacy. Economic and political factors led to the urban-rural information divide in China, and policy is the most powerful solution. Under the influence of humanism, research on the information divide in the UK focuses on all age groups, and solutions differ according to age. Deep-rooted patriarchal concepts and traditional marriage customs make the gender information divide prominent in India, and increasing women's information consciousness is a feasible way to reduce this divide. Originality/value This paper is an extensive review study on the information divide, which clarifies the key countries and their focal fields in research on this topic. More important, the paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes existing literature from a country perspective.

Date

13. 2.2020 18:22:13

0.032991614 = product of:
  0.08247904 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose In The Invisible Substrate of Information Science, a landmark article about the discipline of information science, Marcia J. Bates wrote that ".we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives" (1999a, p. 1048). To sharpen our understanding of information science and to elaborate Bates' idea, the work at hand answers the question: Just what does the red thread of information entail? Design/methodology/approach Through a close reading of Bates' oeuvre and by applying concepts from the reference literature of information science, nine composite entities that qualify as the red thread of information are identified, elaborated, and related to existing concepts in the information science literature. In the spirit of a scientist-poet (White, 1999), several playful metaphors related to the color red are employed. Findings Bates' red thread of information entails: terms, genres, literatures, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, information institutions, and information policy. This same constellation of phenomena can be found in resonant visions of information science, namely, domain analysis (Hjørland, 2002), ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999), and social epistemology (Shera, 1968). Research limitations/implications With the vital vermilion filament in clear view, newcomers can more easily engage the material, conceptual, and social machinery of information science, and specialists are reminded of what constitutes information science as a whole. Future researchers and scientist-poets may wish to supplement the nine composite entities with additional, emergent information phenomena. Originality/value Though the explication of information science that follows is relatively orthodox and time-bound, the paper offers an imaginative, accessible, yet technically precise way of understanding the field.

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

0.032991614 = product of:
  0.08247904 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.

0.032991614 = product of:
  0.08247904 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:02

0.028630337 = product of:
  0.07157584 = sum of:
    0.05997715 = weight(_text_:great in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05997715 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.011598689 = product of:
      0.023197377 = sum of:
        0.023197377 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023197377 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.023549197 = product of:
  0.11774598 = sum of:
    0.11774598 = weight(_text_:policy in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11774598 = score(doc=168,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.5130373 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

On April 2, 2018, the State Council of China formally released a national Research Data Management (RDM) policy "Measures for Managing Scientific Data". In this context and given that university libraries have played an important role in supporting RDM at an institutional level in North America, Europe, and Australasia, the aim of this article is to explore the current status of RDM in Chinese universities, in particular how university libraries have been involved in taking the agenda forward. This article uses a mixed-methods data collection approach and draws on a website analysis of university policies and services; a questionnaire for university librarians; and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that Research Data Service at a local level in Chinese Universities are in their infancy. There is more evidence of activity in developing data repositories than support services. There is little development of local policy. Among the explanations of this may be the existence of a national-level infrastructure for some subject disciplines, the lack of professionalization of librarianship, and the relatively weak resonance of openness as an idea in the Chinese context.

0.023073403 = product of:
  0.11536702 = sum of:
    0.11536702 = weight(_text_:policy in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11536702 = score(doc=899,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.50267184 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The scale and complexity of the data and algorithms used in artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems present significant challenges for anticipating their ethical, legal, and policy implications. Given these challenges, who does the work of AI ethics, and how do they do it? This study reports findings from interviews with 26 stakeholders in AI research, law, and policy. The primary themes are that the work of AI ethics is structured by personal values and professional commitments, and that it involves situated meaning-making through data and algorithms. Given the stakes involved, it is not enough to simply satisfy that AI will not behave unethically; rather, the work of AI ethics needs to be incentivized.

0.023073403 = product of:
  0.11536702 = sum of:
    0.11536702 = weight(_text_:policy in 969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11536702 = score(doc=969,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.50267184 = fieldWeight in 969, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=969)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Governmental and organizational policy increasingly claims to be data-driven, data-informed, or knowledge-driven. We explore the data practices of local governments and nonprofits a seeking to end homelessness in the City of Austin. Drawing on 31 interviews with stakeholders, alongside the reflections and experiences of our interdisciplinary, cross-sector collaborative team, we consider the role of data in guiding and informing interventions and policy regarding homelessness. Ending homelessness is a particularly challenging scenario for intervention, with increasing politicization, changing circumstances, and needing rapid intervention to reduce harm. In exploring some implications of data science "in the wild" as it is deployed, understood, and supported within the Travis County Continuum of Care (CoC), we analyze how data-intensive work connects and engages across disciplinary boundaries. Furthermore, we consider how data science and the iField can collaborate in addressing complex, social problems as advisors and partners with invested organizations.

0.021753816 = product of:
  0.108769074 = sum of:
    0.108769074 = weight(_text_:policy in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108769074 = score(doc=363,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 363, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=363)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Im Folgenden soll der Frage nachgegangen werden, inwiefern Bibliotheken den Qualitätsanspruch an inhaltserschließende Informationen von Ressourcen durch die Formulierung und Veröffentlichung einer bibliotheksspezifischen, übergeordneten Metadaten-Richtlinie bzw. -Policy - auch im Sinne einer Transparenzoffensive - und deren Anwendung beeinflussen können.

0.020992003 = product of:
  0.10496002 = sum of:
    0.10496002 = weight(_text_:great in 5729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10496002 = score(doc=5729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 5729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5729)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The referencing habits of scholars, having abandoned physical bibliography for harvesting of digital resources, are in crisis, endangering the bibliographical infrastructure supporting the domain of knowledge organization. Research must be carefully managed and its circumstances controlled. Bibliographical replicability is one important part of the social role of scholarship. References in Knowledge Organization volume 45 (2018) were compiled and analyzed to help visualize the state of referencing in the KO domain. The dependence of science on the ability to replicate is even more critical in a global distributed digital environment. There is great richness in KO that make it even more critical that our scholarly community tend to the relationship between bibliographical verity and the very replicability that is allowing the field to grow theoretically over time.

0.020992003 = product of:
  0.10496002 = sum of:
    0.10496002 = weight(_text_:great in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10496002 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The bibliographic work has assumed a great deal of importance in modern cataloging. But the concept of the work has existed for over a century, and even some of the earliest catalog codes differentiate between the intellectual work and its instances. This article will delve into the history and theory of the work, providing a basic overview of the concept as well as a summary of the myriad uses of the work throughout the history of cataloging. In addition to monographs, this paper will look at the work as applied to music, moving images, serials, and aggregates.

0.020992003 = product of:
  0.10496002 = sum of:
    0.10496002 = weight(_text_:great in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10496002 = score(doc=439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This contribution presents the principal features of ontologies, drawing special attention to the comparison between ontologies and the different kinds of know­ledge organization systems (KOS). The focus is on the semantic richness exhibited by ontologies, which allows the creation of a great number of relationships between terms. That establishes ontologies as the most evolved type of KOS. The concepts of "conceptualization" and "formalization" and the key components of ontologies are described and discussed, along with upper and domain ontologies and special typologies, such as bibliographical ontologies and biomedical ontologies. The use of ontologies in the digital libraries environment, where they have replaced thesauri for query expansion in searching, and the role they are playing in the Semantic Web, especially for semantic interoperability, are sketched.