Search (451 results, page 1 of 23)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.10 
    0.09713356 = sum of:
  0.08302978 = product of:
    0.24908933 = sum of:
      0.24908933 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24908933 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44320524 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)
  0.014103786 = product of:
    0.028207572 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges- summary and question answering- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and sequential questions initially posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, overall quality, and plagiarism risks. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's true initial thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswerable.
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  2. Wang, J.; Halffman, W.; Zhang, Y.H.: Sorting out journals : the proliferation of journal lists in China (2023) 0.05 
    0.052966505 = product of:
  0.10593301 = sum of:
    0.10593301 = sum of:
      0.070518926 = weight(_text_:research in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070518926 = score(doc=1055,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.47281966 = fieldWeight in 1055, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1055)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)
    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
  3. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.05 
    0.050949983 = product of:
  0.10189997 = sum of:
    0.10189997 = sum of:
      0.06648588 = weight(_text_:research in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06648588 = score(doc=916,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.44577867 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)
    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
  4. Palsdottir, A.: Data literacy and management of research data : a prerequisite for the sharing of research data (2021) 0.05 
    0.048066914 = product of:
  0.09613383 = sum of:
    0.09613383 = sum of:
      0.06780256 = weight(_text_:research in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06780256 = score(doc=183,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.45460683 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.028331263 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028331263 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, 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=183)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  5. Hauff-Hartig, S.: Wissensrepräsentation durch RDF: Drei angewandte Forschungsbeispiele : Bitte recht vielfältig: Wie Wissensgraphen, Disco und FaBiO Struktur in Mangas und die Humanities bringen (2021) 0.05 
    0.04713631 = product of:
  0.09427262 = sum of:
    0.09427262 = sum of:
      0.037610095 = weight(_text_:research in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037610095 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
      0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056662526 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In der Session "Knowledge Representation" auf der ISI 2021 wurden unter der Moderation von Jürgen Reischer (Uni Regensburg) drei Projekte vorgestellt, in denen Knowledge Representation mit RDF umgesetzt wird. Die Domänen sind erfreulich unterschiedlich, die gemeinsame Klammer indes ist die Absicht, den Zugang zu Forschungsdaten zu verbessern: - Japanese Visual Media Graph - Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities - Forschungsdaten im konzeptuellen Modell von FRBR
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  6. Lee, D.J.; Stvilia, B.; Ha, S.; Hahn, D.: ¬The structure and priorities of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities : a case of institutional research information management system (2023) 0.05 
    0.046496272 = product of:
  0.092992544 = sum of:
    0.092992544 = sum of:
      0.057578463 = weight(_text_:research in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057578463 = score(doc=884,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 884, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=884)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=884,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 884, 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=884)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Research information management systems (RIMS) have become critical components of information technology infrastructure on university campuses. They are used not just for sharing and promoting faculty research, but also for conducting faculty evaluation and development, facilitating research collaborations, identifying mentors for student projects, and expert consultants for local businesses. This study is one of the first empirical investigations of the structure of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities in a nonmandatory institutional RIMS. By analyzing the RIMS's log data, we identified 11 tasks researchers performed when updating their profiles. These tasks were further grouped into three activities: (a) adding publication, (b) enhancing researcher identity, and (c) improving research discoverability. In addition, we found that junior researchers and female researchers were more engaged in maintaining their RIMS profiles than senior researchers and male researchers. The results provide insights for designing profile maintenance action templates for institutional RIMS that are tailored to researchers' characteristics and help enhance researchers' engagement in the curation of their research information. This also suggests that female and junior researchers can serve as early adopters of institutional RIMS.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:43:02
  7. Ma, L.: Information, platformized (2023) 0.05 
    0.045676924 = product of:
  0.09135385 = sum of:
    0.09135385 = sum of:
      0.04885695 = weight(_text_:research in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04885695 = score(doc=888,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 888, 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=888)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scholarly publications are often regarded as "information" by default. They are collected, organized, preserved, and made accessible as knowledge records. However, the instances of article retraction, misconduct and malpractices of researchers and the replication crisis have raised concerns about the informativeness and evidential qualities of information. Among many factors, knowledge production has moved away from "normal science" under the systemic influences of platformization involving the datafication and commodification of scholarly articles, research profiles and research activities. This article aims to understand the platformization of information by examining how research practices and knowledge production are steered by market and platform mechanisms in four ways: (a) ownership of information; (b) metrics for sale; (c) relevance by metrics, and (d) market-based competition. In conclusion, the article argues that information is platformized when platforms hold the dominating power in determining what kinds of information can be disseminated and rewarded and when informativeness is decoupled from the normative agreement or consensus co-constructed and co-determined in an open and public discourse.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 19:01:47
  8. Wu, P.F.: Veni, vidi, vici? : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.04 
    0.04124427 = product of:
  0.08248854 = sum of:
    0.08248854 = sum of:
      0.03290883 = weight(_text_:research in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03290883 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
      0.04957971 = weight(_text_:22 in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04957971 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 896, 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=896)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:33:53
  9. Yang, F.; Zhang, X.: Focal fields in literature on the information divide : the USA, China, UK and India (2020) 0.04 
    0.041213352 = product of:
  0.082426704 = sum of:
    0.082426704 = sum of:
      0.047012623 = weight(_text_:research in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047012623 = score(doc=5835,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)
    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
  10. Newell, B.C.: Surveillance as information practice (2023) 0.04 
    0.041213352 = product of:
  0.082426704 = sum of:
    0.082426704 = sum of:
      0.047012623 = weight(_text_:research in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047012623 = score(doc=921,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 921, 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=921)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Surveillance, as a concept and social practice, is inextricably linked to information. It is, at its core, about information extraction and analysis conducted for some regulatory purpose. Yet, information science research only sporadically leverages surveillance studies scholarship, and we see a lack of sustained and focused attention to surveillance as an object of research within the domains of information behavior and social informatics. Surveillance, as a range of contextual and culturally based social practices defined by their connections to information seeking and use, should be framed as information practice-as that term is used within information behavior scholarship. Similarly, manifestations of surveillance in society are frequently perfect examples of information and communications technologies situated within everyday social and organizational structures-the very focus of social informatics research. The technological infrastructures and material artifacts of surveillance practice-surveillance technologies-can also be viewed as information tools. Framing surveillance as information practice and conceptualizing surveillance technologies as socially and contextually situated information tools can provide space for new avenues of research within the information sciences, especially within information disciplines that focus their attention on the social aspects of information and information technologies in society.
    Date
    22. 3.2023 11:57:47
  11. Hertzum, M.: Information seeking by experimentation : trying something out to discover what happens (2023) 0.04 
    0.04119421 = product of:
  0.08238842 = sum of:
    0.08238842 = sum of:
      0.03989153 = weight(_text_:research in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03989153 = score(doc=915,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Experimentation is the process of trying something out to discover what happens. It is a widespread information practice, yet often bypassed in information-behavior research. This article argues that experimentation complements prior knowledge, documents, and people as an important fourth class of information sources. Relative to the other classes, the distinguishing characteristics of experimentation are that it is a personal-as opposed to interpersonal-source and that it provides "backtalk." When the information seeker tries something out and then attends to the resulting situation, it is as though the materials of the situation talk back: They provide the information seeker with a situated and direct experience of the consequences of the tried-out options. In this way, experimentation involves obtaining information by creating it. It also involves turning material and behavioral processes into information interactions. Thereby, information seeking by experimentation is important to practical information literacy and extends information-behavior research with new insights on the interrelations between creating and seeking information.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:29
  12. Kuehn, E.F.: ¬The information ecosystem concept in information literacy : a theoretical approach and definition (2023) 0.04 
    0.04119421 = product of:
  0.08238842 = sum of:
    0.08238842 = sum of:
      0.03989153 = weight(_text_:research in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03989153 = score(doc=919,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 919, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=919)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 919, 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=919)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Despite the prominence of the concept of the information ecosystem (hereafter IE) in information literacy documents and literature, it is under-theorized. This article proposes a general definition of IE for information literacy. After reviewing the current use of the IE concept in the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy and other information literacy sources, existing definitions of IE and similar concepts (e.g., "evidence ecosystems") will be examined from other fields. These will form the basis of the definition of IE proposed in the article for the field of information literacy: "all structures, entities, and agents related to the flow of semantic information relevant to a research domain, as well as the information itself."
    Date
    22. 3.2023 11:52:50
  13. Ekstrand, M.D.; Wright, K.L.; Pera, M.S.: Enhancing classroom instruction with online news (2020) 0.04 
    0.038064104 = product of:
  0.07612821 = sum of:
    0.07612821 = sum of:
      0.040714126 = weight(_text_:research in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040714126 = score(doc=5844,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=5844,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5844, 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=5844)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper investigates how school teachers look for informational texts for their classrooms. Access to current, varied and authentic informational texts improves learning outcomes for K-12 students, but many teachers lack resources to expand and update readings. The Web offers freely available resources, but finding suitable ones is time-consuming. This research lays the groundwork for building tools to ease that burden. Design/methodology/approach This paper reports qualitative findings from a study in two stages: (1) a set of semistructured interviews, based on the critical incident technique, eliciting teachers' information-seeking practices and challenges; and (2) observations of teachers using a prototype teaching-oriented news search tool under a think-aloud protocol. Findings Teachers articulated different objectives and ways of using readings in their classrooms, goals and self-reported practices varied by experience level. Teachers struggled to formulate queries that are likely to return readings on specific course topics, instead searching directly for abstract topics. Experience differences did not translate into observable differences in search skill or success in the lab study. Originality/value There is limited work on teachers' information-seeking practices, particularly on how teachers look for texts for classroom use. This paper describes how teachers look for information in this context, setting the stage for future development and research on how to support this use case. Understanding and supporting teachers looking for information is a rich area for future research, due to the complexity of the information need and the fact that teachers are not looking for information for themselves.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  14. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.04 
    0.038064104 = product of:
  0.07612821 = sum of:
    0.07612821 = sum of:
      0.040714126 = weight(_text_:research in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040714126 = score(doc=998,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
  15. Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M.: Participatory design for ontologies : a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas (2020) 0.04 
    0.037197016 = product of:
  0.07439403 = sum of:
    0.07439403 = sum of:
      0.046062768 = weight(_text_:research in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046062768 = score(doc=179,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.3088445 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
      0.028331263 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028331263 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)
    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
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Showcasing Doctoral Research in Information Science.
  16. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.04 
    0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:53:32
  17. Ma, Y.: Relatedness and compatibility : the concept of privacy in Mandarin Chinese and American English corpora (2023) 0.04 
    0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 887, 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=887)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigates how privacy as an ethical concept exists in two languages: Mandarin Chinese and American English. The exploration relies on two genres of corpora from 10 years: social media posts and news articles, 2010-2019. A mixed-methods approach combining structural topic modeling (STM) and human interpretation were used to work with the data. Findings show various privacy-related topics across the two languages. Moreover, some of these different topics revealed fundamental incompatibilities for understanding privacy across these two languages. In other words, some of the variations of topics do not just reflect contextual differences; they reveal how the two languages value privacy in different ways that can relate back to the society's ethical tradition. This study is one of the first empirically grounded intercultural explorations of the concept of privacy. It has shown that natural language is promising to operationalize intercultural and comparative privacy research, and it provides an examination of the concept as it is understood in these two languages.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:59:40
  18. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.04 
    0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:14
  19. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.03 
    0.034595743 = product of:
  0.069191486 = sum of:
    0.069191486 = product of:
      0.20757446 = sum of:
        0.20757446 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20757446 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44320524 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."
  20. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.03 
    0.034595743 = product of:
  0.069191486 = sum of:
    0.069191486 = product of:
      0.20757446 = sum of:
        0.20757446 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20757446 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44320524 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • e 413
  • d 35
  • pt 2
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 438
  • el 40
  • m 5
  • p 3
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications