Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02884543 = product of:
  0.07211357 = sum of:
    0.031803396 = weight(_text_:technology in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031803396 = score(doc=3597,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1201-1211

0.019353405 = product of:
  0.04838351 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 1726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=1726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1726)
    0.025895113 = product of:
      0.051790226 = sum of:
        0.051790226 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051790226 = score(doc=1726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 1726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to propose a multi-dimensional taxonomy for information kiosk-based self service technologies (SSTs). This taxonomy has an important contribution to make to the integration of research and development, in relation to information kiosks. There are aspects that may also be extended to e-service, online service and self-service. Design/methodology/approach - The conceptual context for this work is established by a review of previous literature. This focuses on taxonomies and classification schemes relating to information kiosks, traditional services (p-services) and e-services. A comprehensive database of information kiosk technologies and their applications is constructed. Longitudinal observation of the development of information kiosk technologies is the basis for this and has been extended by web research. Findings - An iterative analysis of the kiosk database defines the nature of service delivery from kiosks, and supports the identification and verification of the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the taxonomy. It is informed by earlier classification schemes and taxonomies in the information kiosk, e-service and p-service literature. Originality/value - This taxonomy has four main dimensions: Location, User, Task and Technology. Sub-dimensions are developed for each of these main dimensions. It can be used to classify all information kiosks.

0.0152656315 = product of:
  0.07632816 = sum of:
    0.07632816 = weight(_text_:technology in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07632816 = score(doc=2548,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.5584476 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

LCSH

Information technology

Subject

Information technology

0.011401443 = product of:
  0.057007212 = sum of:
    0.057007212 = weight(_text_:social in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057007212 = score(doc=4541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight limits to the dominant model of social inclusion under which UK public libraries operate, to analyse how and to what extent processes of socio-cultural exclusion emerge in the subject representation and discoverability of "non-dominant" resources in public library OPACs, and to consider folksonomy as a solution to any issues raised. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first develops a critique of the dominant model of "inclusion" within UK public libraries, drawing on feminist and critical theories of identity. It then considers how this critique overlaps with and offers fresh insights into major debates within subject indexing, and develops a theoretical rationale for considering the potential of folksonomy to intervene in more inclusive subject-indexing design. A user-based critical interpretive methodology which understands OPACs as texts open to multiple interpretations is developed, and a comparative reading of standard OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy is undertaken to evaluate the discoverability and subject representation of LGBTQ and ethnic minority resources. Findings - LibraryThing folksonomy offers benefits over LCSH subject indexing in the discoverability and representation of LGBTQ resources. However, the folksonomy is dominated by US taggers, and this impacts on the tagging of ethnic minority resources. Folksonomy, like traditional indexing, is found to contain its own biases in worldview and subject representation. Originality/value - The importance of subject indexing in developing inclusive library services is highlighted and a new method for evaluating OPACs is developed.

0.008995359 = product of:
  0.044976793 = sum of:
    0.044976793 = weight(_text_:technology in 7950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044976793 = score(doc=7950,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 7950, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7950)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information management and technology. 27(1994) no.2, S.62-65

0.008792883 = product of:
  0.043964412 = sum of:
    0.043964412 = product of:
      0.087928824 = sum of:
        0.087928824 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087928824 = score(doc=183,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.1999 17:50:37

Source

Online and CD-ROM review. 22(1998) no.4, S.277-279

0.0076328157 = product of:
  0.03816408 = sum of:
    0.03816408 = weight(_text_:technology in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03816408 = score(doc=450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This second part of a two-part article establishes a model of the mediating factors that influence student information behavior concerning the electronic or digital information sources used to support learning. This part discusses the findings of the Joint Information Systems Committee User Behavior Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (1999-2004) and development of a model that includes both the individual (micro) and organizational (macro) factors affecting student information behavior. The macro factors are information resource design, information and learning technology infrastructure, availability and constraints to access, policies and funding, and organizational leadership and culture. The micro factors are information literacy, academics' information behavior, search strategies, discipline and curriculum, support and training, and pedagogy. We conclude that the mediating factors interact in unexpected ways and that further research is needed to clarify how those interactions, particularly between the macro and micro factors, operate.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1188-1197

0.0072506317 = product of:
  0.036253158 = sum of:
    0.036253158 = product of:
      0.072506316 = sum of:
        0.072506316 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072506316 = score(doc=4502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 4502, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Library managers are often concerned to assess the most cost effective means of access to bibliographic data. Considers comparative prices for bibliographic data on CD-ROM and in print form. In many instances, CD-ROM offers added value and easier access to data, but the relative cost is important. Library managers need not only to compare prices but to consider cost effectiveness. Differences between the nature of bibliographic data on CD-ROM and in a printed bibliography or in abstracting and indexing service, and the relative complexities of pricing structures for bibliographic data in both CD-ROM and printed form, where both hinder comparisons. Varying policies on network pricing are an added complication when assessing CD-ROM service. Concludes that some standardization of aspects of the licensing arrangements would be welcome

0.0062967516 = product of:
  0.03148376 = sum of:
    0.03148376 = weight(_text_:technology in 7427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03148376 = score(doc=7427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 7427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7427)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reviews the literature on the design and evaluation of user interfaces on commercial CD-ROM databases, with the aim of producing guidelines. Defines interfaces, dialogues and interaction, and explores the diversity in and issues associated with standardization in CD-ROM interface design. Current criteria and guidelines for the design and evaluation of CD-ROM user interfaces include those of the Special Interest Group on CD-ROM Applications and Technology (SIGCAT) and guidelinies proposed by others. Compares the recommendations of 2 studies of CD-ROM user interfaces: Richards and Robinson (CD-ROM professional, 6(1993) no.5, S.92-101) and Harry and Oppenheim (Online and CD-ROM review 17(1993) no.4, S.211-222 u. 17(1993) no.6, S.339-368). An alternative set of guidelines is proposed based on this earlier work

0.0061550178 = product of:
  0.030775089 = sum of:
    0.030775089 = product of:
      0.061550178 = sum of:
        0.061550178 = weight(_text_:22 in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061550178 = score(doc=3043,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3043, 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=3043)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22
22. 2.1999 17:48:45

0.005397215 = product of:
  0.026986076 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.824-840

0.005179023 = product of:
  0.025895113 = sum of:
    0.025895113 = product of:
      0.051790226 = sum of:
        0.051790226 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051790226 = score(doc=4434,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 4434, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4434)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Describes key aspects of the methodology and outcomes of the JISC User Behaviour Monitoring and Evaluation Framework in its first three annual cycles (1999-2002). The Framework was initiated to assure the JISC that their investment in digital content and network infrastructure facilitates use and learning, and to identify barriers and facilitators to the use of electronic information services (EIS). Key Framework outcomes are: a multi-dimensional across sector methodology for the continued monitoring of user behaviour in respect of EIS and the factors that impact on that behaviour; a profile of user behaviour in respect of EIS over the three annual cycles of the Framework; the EIS Diagnostic Toolkit that can be used to benchmark development in the provision and use of EIS in specific disciplines or at specific institutions; a methodology for monitoring, and a profile of the EIS resources available to higher and further education users; and a summary of some of the key issues in their provision. The challenge for the future is the embedding of EIS in curricula and learning experiences.

0.0044976794 = product of:
  0.022488397 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=7151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases

0.0044976794 = product of:
  0.022488397 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1162-1174

0.0044976794 = product of:
  0.022488397 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=3316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.36-47