Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07543648 = product of:
  0.12572746 = sum of:
    0.08463203 = weight(_text_:literacy in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08463203 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26121095 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.32399878 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
    0.026009986 = weight(_text_:study in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026009986 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.17961644 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
    0.015085445 = product of:
      0.03017089 = sum of:
        0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017089 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 34, 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=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

For laypeople, searching online health information resources can be challenging due to topic complexity and the large number of online sources with differing quality. The goal of this article is to examine, among all the available online sources, which online sources laypeople select to address their health-related information needs, and whether or how much the severity of a health condition influences their selection. Twenty-four participants were recruited individually, and each was asked (using a retrieval system called HIS) to search for information regarding a severe health condition and a mild health condition, respectively. The selected online health information sources were automatically captured by the HIS system and classified at both the website and webpage levels. Participants' selection behavior patterns were then plotted across the whole information-seeking process. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's source selection fluctuates during the health information-seeking process, and also varies by the severity of health conditions. This study reveals laypeople's real usage of different types of online health information sources, and engenders implications to the design of search engines, as well as the development of health literacy programs.

Date

12.11.2020 13:22:09

0.046494167 = product of:
  0.11623542 = sum of:
    0.073567346 = weight(_text_:study in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073567346 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.50803196 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
    0.042668078 = product of:
      0.085336156 = sum of:
        0.085336156 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085336156 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, 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=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Describes the development of EEVL and outlines the services offered. The potential market for EEVL is discussed, and a case study of promotional activities is presented

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.028865311 = product of:
  0.07216328 = sum of:
    0.054060746 = weight(_text_:study in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054060746 = score(doc=3460,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.37332577 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
    0.018102532 = product of:
      0.036205065 = sum of:
        0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036205065 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study explores how and why people participate in collaborative knowledge-building practices in the context of Wikipedia. Based on a survey of 223 Wikipedians, this study examines the relationship between motivations, internal cognitive beliefs, social-relational factors, and knowledge-sharing intentions. Results from structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis reveal that attitudes, knowledge self-efficacy, and a basic norm of generalized reciprocity have significant and direct relationships with knowledge-sharing intentions. Altruism (an intrinsic motivator) is positively related to attitudes toward knowledge sharing, whereas reputation (an extrinsic motivator) is not a significant predictor of attitude. The study also reveals that a social-relational factor, namely, a sense of belonging, is related to knowledge-sharing intentions indirectly through different motivational and social factors such as altruism, subjective norms, knowledge self-efficacy, and generalized reciprocity. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

0.026301075 = product of:
  0.065752685 = sum of:
    0.041615978 = weight(_text_:study in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041615978 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.2873863 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
    0.02413671 = product of:
      0.04827342 = sum of:
        0.04827342 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04827342 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, 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=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.024054427 = product of:
  0.060136065 = sum of:
    0.04505062 = weight(_text_:study in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04505062 = score(doc=2352,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.3111048 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.015085445 = product of:
      0.03017089 = sum of:
        0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017089 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.