Search (874 results, page 1 of 44)

0.17033672 = product of:
  0.25550508 = sum of:
    0.2437278 = weight(_text_:sociology in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2437278 = score(doc=18,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.79922515 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=18,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

It is suggested that the knowledge organization (KO) field places greater emphasis on basic research that examines the sociology of KO systems (KOS) and the broader, environmental reasons for the development of both formal and informal KOS. This approach is contrasted with applied KO, which focuses on the practical construction or improvement of specific KOS. The preponderance of applied research in the field of KO is confirmed, at least within the document-centric strand more closely aligned with library and information science, through a survey of articles in the Knowledge Organization journal published between 2009 and 2018. The survey utilized the Frascati Manual definitions for basic and applied research, and referenced Tennis's classification of KO research (2008). There is considerable potential for building on the critical tradition of KO, with various areas ripe for further sociological investigation. A sociology of KOS could also be accommodated in the popular KO approach of domain analysis.

0.14342903 = product of:
  0.21514353 = sum of:
    0.16583575 = weight(_text_:sociology in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16583575 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.5438038 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.04930777 = sum of:
      0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019628802 = score(doc=5973,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5973, 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=5973)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore effects of individuals' social context on their perception of a task, for better understanding of social aspects of task-based information seeking behavior. Design/methodology/approach This study took a qualitative case approach and conducted semi-structured one-on-one interviews with 12 participants. A cross-context comparative approach was chosen to identify effects of the social contexts on individuals. For comparative analysis, the research population was tenured faculty members in two different disciplines, natural sciences and humanities. The interview data were analyzed and coded using NVivo12 through an open coding process. Findings The results demonstrate that the same task type is differently perceived by individuals in different social contexts. Reasons for the different perceptions in the different contexts are associated with social factors of the disciplines, specifically social norms and practices. Originality/value This study uses a novel theoretical framework, cognitive sociology, to examine social aspects of human perception in relation to task-based information seeking behavior, which has been little understood theoretically and empirically in the field of information science.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.4, S.525-543

0.11577663 = product of:
  0.17366494 = sum of:
    0.16583575 = weight(_text_:sociology in 387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16583575 = score(doc=387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.5438038 = fieldWeight in 387, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=387)
    0.007829184 = product of:
      0.015658367 = sum of:
        0.015658367 = weight(_text_:of in 387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015658367 = score(doc=387,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 387, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause-effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause-effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified-showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause-effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.11, S.1367-1385

0.08677482 = product of:
  0.13016222 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=679,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 679, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=679)
    0.012898651 = product of:
      0.025797302 = sum of:
        0.025797302 = weight(_text_:of in 679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025797302 = score(doc=679,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 679, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=679)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The conditions that domain analysis becomes an academic school of information science (IS) are mature. Domain analysis is one of the most important foundations of IS. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss metatheoretical and theoretical issues in the domain analytic paradigm in IS. Design/methodology/approach This paper conducts a systematic review of representative publications of domain analysis. The analysis considered degree theses, journal articles, book chapters, conference papers and other materials. Findings Domain analysis maintains that community is the new focus of IS research. Although domain analysis centers on the domain and community, theoretical concerns on the social and individual dimensions of IS are inherent in it by its using sociology as its important approach and socio-cognitive viewpoint. For these reasons domain analysis can integrate social-community-individual levels of IS discipline as a whole. The role of subject knowledge in IS is discussed from the perspective of domain analysis. Realistic pragmatism that forms the philosophical foundation of domain analysis is argued and the implications of these theories to IS are presented. Originality/value The intellectual evolving landscape of domain analysis during a quarter century is comprehensively reviewed. Over the past twenty-five years, domain analysis has established its academic status in the international IS circle. Being an important metatheory, paradigm and methodology, domain analysis becomes the theoretical foundation of IS research. This paper assesses the current state of domain analysis and shows the contributions of domain analysis to IS. It also aims to inspire further exploration.

Source

Journal of documentation. 78(2022) no.5, S.1027-1052

0.08581623 = product of:
  0.12872434 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=663,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1489-1505

0.070587926 = product of:
  0.105881885 = sum of:
    0.093810864 = weight(_text_:sociology in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093810864 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.30762187 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.012071025 = product of:
      0.02414205 = sum of:
        0.02414205 = weight(_text_:of in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02414205 = score(doc=829,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35238793 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Constructivism in the social sciences has known several ups and downs over the last decades. It was successful rather early in sociology but hotly contested in International Politics/Relations (IR). Oddly enough, just at the moments it made important inroads into the research agenda and became accepted by the mainstream, the enthusiasm for it waned. Many constructivists-as did mainstream scholars-moved from "grand theory" or even "meta-theory" toward "normal science," or experimented with other (eclectic) approaches, of which the turns to practices, to emotions, to new materialism, to the visual, and to the queer are some of the latest manifestations. In a way, constructivism was "successful," on the one hand, by introducing norms, norm-dynamics, and diffusion; the role of new actors in world politics; and the changing role of institutions into the debates, while losing, on the other hand, much of its critical potential. The latter survived only on the fringes-and in Europe more than in the United States. In IR, curiously, constructivism, which was rooted in various European traditions (philosophy, history, linguistics, social analysis), was originally introduced in Europe via the disciplinary discussions taking place in the United States. Yet, especially in its critical version, it has found a more conducive environment in Europe than in the United States.
In the United States, soon after its emergence, constructivism became "mainstreamed" by having its analysis of norms reduced to "variable research." In such research, positive examples of for instance the spread of norms were included, but strangely empirical evidence of counterexamples of norm "deaths" (preventive strikes, unlawful combatants, drone strikes, extrajudicial killings) were not. The elective affinity of constructivism and humanitarianism seemed to have transformed the former into the Enlightenment project of "progress." Even Kant was finally pressed into the service of "liberalism" in the U.S. discussion, and his notion of the "practical interest of reason" morphed into the political project of an "end of history." This "slant" has prevented a serious conceptual engagement with the "history" of law and (inter-)national politics and the epistemological problems that are raised thereby. This bowdlerization of constructivism is further buttressed by the fact that in the "knowledge industry" none of the "leading" U.S. departments has a constructivist on board, ensuring thereby the narrowness of conceptual and methodological choices to which the future "professionals" are exposed. This article contextualizes constructivism and its emergence within a changing world and within the evolution of the discipline. The aim is not to provide a definition or a typology of constructivism, since such efforts go against the critical dimension of constructivism. An application of this critique on constructivism itself leads to a reflection on truth, knowledge, and the need for (re-)orientation.

Source

Oxford research encyclopedia of politics

0.06777492 = product of:
  0.10166238 = sum of:
    0.093810864 = weight(_text_:sociology in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093810864 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.30762187 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
    0.0078515215 = product of:
      0.015703043 = sum of:
        0.015703043 = weight(_text_:of in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015703043 = score(doc=607,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified. Design/methodology/approach The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson. Findings Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered. Research limitations/implications The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective. Practical implications The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information. Social implications Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems. Originality/value The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.

Source

Journal of documentation. 78(2022) no.2, S.485-509

0.040085282 = product of:
  0.06012792 = sum of:
    0.052187677 = product of:
      0.20875071 = sum of:
        0.20875071 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20875071 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37143064 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.007940242 = product of:
      0.015880484 = sum of:
        0.015880484 = weight(_text_:of in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015880484 = score(doc=862,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.030965928 = product of:
  0.04644889 = sum of:
    0.043489736 = product of:
      0.17395894 = sum of:
        0.17395894 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17395894 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37143064 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0029591534 = product of:
      0.0059183068 = sum of:
        0.0059183068 = weight(_text_:of in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059183068 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.086386204 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.023560425 = product of:
  0.070681274 = sum of:
    0.070681274 = sum of:
      0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023194931 = score(doc=5749,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article describes experiments in the use of machine learning techniques at the British Library to assign language codes to catalog records, in order to provide information about the language of content of the resources described. In the first phase of the project, language codes were assigned to 1.15 million records with 99.7% confidence. The automated language identification tools developed will be used to contribute to future enhancement of over 4 million legacy records.

Date

2. 3.2020 19:04:22

0.020615373 = product of:
  0.06184612 = sum of:
    0.06184612 = sum of:
      0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020295564 = score(doc=40,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Web of Science

0.020615373 = product of:
  0.06184612 = sum of:
    0.06184612 = sum of:
      0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020295564 = score(doc=896,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

JASIST has in recent years received many submissions reporting data analytics based on "Big Data" of online reviews scraped from various platforms. By outlining major issues in this type of scape-and-report scholarship and providing a set of recommendations, this essay encourages online reviews researchers to look at Big Data with a critical eye and treat online reviews as a sociotechnical "thing" produced within the fabric of sociomaterial life.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:33:53

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.145-149

0.020072233 = product of:
  0.0602167 = sum of:
    0.0602167 = sum of:
      0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02460194 = score(doc=5620,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 5620, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5620)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5620, 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=5620)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There is a mutual resemblance between the behavior of users of the Stack Exchange and the dynamics of the citations accumulation process in the scientific community, which enabled us to tackle the outwardly intractable problem of assessing the impact of introducing "negative" citations. Although the most frequent reason to cite an article is to highlight the connection between the 2 publications, researchers sometimes mention an earlier work to cast a negative light. While computing citation-based scores, for instance, the h-index, information about the reason why an article was mentioned is neglected. Therefore, it can be questioned whether these indices describe scientific achievements accurately. In this article we shed insight into the problem of "negative" citations, analyzing data from Stack Exchange and, to draw more universal conclusions, we derive an approximation of citations scores. Here we show that the quantified influence of introducing negative citations is of lesser importance and that they could be used as an indicator of where the attention of the scientific community is allocated.

Date

6. 1.2020 18:10:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.2, S.221-229

0.019723108 = product of:
  0.059169322 = sum of:
    0.059169322 = sum of:
      0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023554565 = score(doc=919,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 919, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=919)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.434-443

0.019723108 = product of:
  0.059169322 = sum of:
    0.059169322 = sum of:
      0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023554565 = score(doc=920,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 920, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=920)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=920,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 920, 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=920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge proximity refers to the strength of association between any two entities in a structural form that embodies certain aspects of a knowledge base. In this work, we operationalize knowledge proximity within the context of the US Patent Database (knowledge base) using a knowledge graph (structural form) named "PatNet" built using patent metadata, including citations, inventors, assignees, and domain classifications. We train various graph embedding models using PatNet to obtain the embeddings of entities and relations. The cosine similarity between the corresponding (or transformed) embeddings of entities denotes the knowledge proximity between these. We compare the embedding models in terms of their performances in predicting target entities and explaining domain expansion profiles of inventors and assignees. We then apply the embeddings of the best-preferred model to associate homogeneous (e.g., patent-patent) and heterogeneous (e.g., inventor-assignee) pairs of entities.

Date

22. 3.2023 12:06:55

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.476-490

0.019373938 = product of:
  0.058121815 = sum of:
    0.058121815 = sum of:
      0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01657126 = score(doc=997,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In recent years, cultural heritage institutions have been exploring the benefits of applying Linked Open Data to their catalogs and digital materials. Innovative and creative methods have emerged to publish and reuse digital contents to promote computational access, such as the concepts of Labs and Collections as Data. Data quality has become a requirement for researchers and training methods based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article explores how the quality of Linked Open Data made available by cultural heritage institutions can be automatically assessed. The results obtained can be useful for other institutions who wish to publish and assess their collections.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:23:31

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.866-878

0.019357719 = product of:
  0.058073156 = sum of:
    0.058073156 = sum of:
      0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022458395 = score(doc=887,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.249-272

0.019357719 = product of:
  0.058073156 = sum of:
    0.058073156 = sum of:
      0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022458395 = score(doc=1181,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Nuovo soggettario, the official Italian subject indexing system edited by the National Central Library of Florence, is made up of interactive components, the core of which is a general thesaurus and some rules of a conventional syntax for subject string construction. The Nuovo soggettario Thesaurus is in compliance with ISO 25964: 2011-2013, IFLA LRM, and FAIR principle (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). Its open data are available in the Zthes, MARC21, and in SKOS formats and allow for interoperability with l library, archive, and museum databases. The Thesaurus's macrostructure is organized into four fundamental macro-categories, thirteen categories, and facets. The facets allow for the orderly development of hierarchies, thereby limiting polyhierarchies and promoting the grouping of homogenous concepts. This paper addresses the main features and peculiarities which have characterized the consistent development of this categorical structure and its effects on the syntactic sphere in a predominantly pre-coordinated usage context.

Date

26.11.2023 18:59:22

Footnote

Beitrag in Themenheft: Implementation of Faceted Vocabularies.

0.018985212 = product of:
  0.056955636 = sum of:
    0.056955636 = sum of:
      0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009469291 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.018973555 = product of:
  0.056920663 = sum of:
    0.056920663 = sum of:
      0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021305902 = score(doc=888,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.273-282