Search (137 results, page 1 of 7)

0.14147852 = product of:
  0.28295705 = sum of:
    0.07073926 = product of:
      0.21221778 = sum of:
        0.21221778 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21221778 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3775996 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = 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)
    0.21221778 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21221778 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3775996 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.11789878 = product of:
  0.23579755 = sum of:
    0.05894939 = product of:
      0.17684816 = sum of:
        0.17684816 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17684816 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3775996 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = 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)
    0.17684816 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17684816 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3775996 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.064012155 = product of:
  0.12802431 = sum of:
    0.041677885 = weight(_text_:technological in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041677885 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.17611535 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.08634643 = sum of:
      0.068243295 = weight(_text_:innovations in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068243295 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30282074 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0445387 = queryNorm
          0.22535871 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.018103136 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018103136 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15596694 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0445387 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.050729454 = product of:
  0.10145891 = sum of:
    0.08335577 = weight(_text_:technological in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08335577 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.3522307 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
    0.018103136 = product of:
      0.03620627 = sum of:
        0.03620627 = weight(_text_:22 in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03620627 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 184, 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=184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.042274546 = product of:
  0.08454909 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
    0.015085948 = product of:
      0.030171895 = sum of:
        0.030171895 = weight(_text_:22 in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030171895 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.042274546 = product of:
  0.08454909 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.015085948 = product of:
      0.030171895 = sum of:
        0.030171895 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030171895 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12

0.042274546 = product of:
  0.08454909 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.015085948 = product of:
      0.030171895 = sum of:
        0.030171895 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030171895 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 7.2023 13:28:28

0.042274546 = product of:
  0.08454909 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 1126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1126)
    0.015085948 = product of:
      0.030171895 = sum of:
        0.030171895 = weight(_text_:22 in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030171895 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1126, 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=1126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Domains represent concepts which belong to specific parts of the world. The particularized meaning of words linguistically encoding such domain concepts are provided by domain specific resources. The explicit meaning of such words are increasingly captured computationally using domain-specific ontologies, which, even for the same reference domain, are most often than not semantically incompatible. As information systems that rely on domain ontologies expand, there is a growing need to not only design domain ontologies and domain ontology-grounded Knowl­edge Graphs (KGs) but also to align them to general standards and conventions for interoperability. This often presents an insurmountable challenge to domain experts who have to additionally learn the construction of domain ontologies and KGs. Until now, several research methodologies have been proposed by different research groups using different technical approaches and based on scenarios of different domains of application. However, no methodology has been proposed which not only facilitates designing conceptually well-founded ontologies, but is also, equally, grounded in the general pedagogical principles of knowl­edge organization and, thereby, flexible enough to teach, and reproduce vis-à-vis domain experts. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a general, pedagogically flexible semantic knowl­edge modelling methodology. We exemplify the methodology by examples and illustrations from a professional-level digital healthcare course, and conclude with an evaluation grounded in technological parameters as well as user experience design principles.

Date

20.11.2023 17:19:22

0.038204573 = product of:
  0.15281829 = sum of:
    0.15281829 = sum of:
      0.12868078 = weight(_text_:innovations in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12868078 = score(doc=1003,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.30282074 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0445387 = queryNorm
          0.42494047 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.024137516 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024137516 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15596694 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0445387 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Increasingly we live through our personal screens; we work, play, socialize, and learn digitally. The shift to remote everything during the pandemic was another step in a decades-long march toward the digitization of everyday life made possible by innovations in media, information, and communication technology. In The Digital Environment, Pablo Boczkowski and Eugenia Mitchelstein offer a new way to understand the role of the digital in our daily lives, calling on us to turn our attention from our discrete devices and apps to the array of artifacts and practices that make up the digital environment that envelops every aspect of our social experience. Boczkowski and Mitchelstein explore a series of issues raised by the digital takeover of everyday life, drawing on interviews with a variety of experts. They show how existing inequities of gender, race, ethnicity, education, and class are baked into the design and deployment of technology, and describe emancipatory practices that counter this--including the use of Twitter as a platform for activism through such hashtags as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo. They discuss the digitization of parenting, schooling, and dating--noting, among other things, that today we can both begin and end relationships online. They describe how digital media shape our consumption of sports, entertainment, and news, and consider the dynamics of political campaigns, disinformation, and social activism. Finally, they report on developments in three areas that will be key to our digital future: data science, virtual reality, and space exploration.

Content

1. Three Environments, One Life -- Part I: Foundations -- 2. Mediatization -- 3. Algorithms -- 4. Race and Ethnicity -- 5. Gender -- Part II: Institutions -- 6. Parenting -- 7. Schooling -- 8. Working -- 9. Dating -- Part III: Leisure -- 10. Sports -- 11. Televised Entertainment -- 12. News -- Part IV: Politics -- 13. Misinformation and Disinformation -- 14. Electoral Campaigns -- 15. Activism -- Part V: Innovations -- 16. Data Science -- 17. Virtual Reality -- 18. Space Exploration -- 19. Bricks and Cracks in the Digital Environment

Date

22. 6.2023 18:25:18

0.03473157 = product of:
  0.13892628 = sum of:
    0.13892628 = weight(_text_:technological in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13892628 = score(doc=5732,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.58705115 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recent technological developments have increased the use of machine learning to solve many problems, including many in information retrieval. Multimedia information retrieval as a problem represents a significant challenge to machine learning as a technological solution, but some problems can still be addressed by using appropriate AI techniques. We review the technological developments and provide a perspective on the use of machine learning in conjunction with knowledge organization to address multimedia IR needs. The semantic gap in multimedia IR remains a significant problem in the field, and solutions to them are many years off. However, new technological developments allow the use of knowledge organization and machine learning in multimedia search systems and services. Specifically, we argue that, the improvement of detection of some classes of lowlevel features in images music and video can be used in conjunction with knowledge organization to tag or label multimedia content for better retrieval performance. We provide an overview of the use of knowledge organization schemes in machine learning and make recommendations to information professionals on the use of this technology with knowledge organization techniques to solve multimedia IR problems. We introduce a five-step process model that extracts features from multimedia objects (Step 1) from both knowledge organization (Step 1a) and machine learning (Step 1b), merging them together (Step 2) to create an index of those multimedia objects (Step 3). We also overview further steps in creating an application to utilize the multimedia objects (Step 4) and maintaining and updating the database of features on those objects (Step 5).

0.03473157 = product of:
  0.13892628 = sum of:
    0.13892628 = weight(_text_:technological in 5935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13892628 = score(doc=5935,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.58705115 = fieldWeight in 5935, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5935)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explores technological sovereignty as a way to respond to anxieties of control in digital urban contexts, and argues that this may promise a more meaningful social license to operate smart cities. First, we present an overview of smart city developments with a critical focus on corporatization and platform urbanism. We critique Alphabet's Sidewalk Labs development in Toronto, which faces public backlash from the #BlockSidewalk campaign in response to concerns over not just privacy, but also lack of community consultation, the prospect of the city losing its civic ability to self-govern, and its repossession of public land and infrastructure. Second, we explore what a more responsible smart city could look like, underpinned by technological sovereignty, which is a way to use technologies to promote individual and collective autonomy and empowerment via ownership, control, and self-governance of data and technologies. To this end, we juxtapose the Sidewalk Labs development in Toronto with the Barcelona Digital City plan. We illustrate the merits (and limits) of technological sovereignty moving toward a fairer and more equitable digital society.

0.0243121 = product of:
  0.0972484 = sum of:
    0.0972484 = weight(_text_:technological in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0972484 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.41093582 = fieldWeight in 5919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5919)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of theories and methodologies that have been applied in citizen science research. This study suggests a significant contribution of citizen science to various disciplines as well as overall science education, literacy, and development. A solid theoretical grounding of citizen science research, coupled with application of pertinent emergent theories to various processes associated with scientific inquiry and discovery, suggests the disciplinary traits and unique contributions. This study proposes that the current pace of citizen science research, empowered by ordinary citizens as well as technological affordances, provides solid evidence to warrant further development of citizen science as a unique discipline that can strengthen and democratize scientific inquiry.

0.020838942 = product of:
  0.08335577 = sum of:
    0.08335577 = weight(_text_:technological in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08335577 = score(doc=706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.3522307 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Descriptive cataloging is the process of representing resources by recording their identifying traits and selecting specific names and titles to serve as access points. It is a key component of the larger cataloging process alongside subject cataloging, authority work, and encoding. Descriptive cataloging practices have existed for centuries and, over time, have become standardized through the use of cataloging codes. These documents guide this process by prescribing a consistent set of elements, providing directions on how to record these elements, and offering instructions on how to select and format access points. The goal of descriptive cataloging is not to create perfect representations but to provide data to serve users. The international cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) is now bringing more institutions under the same set of descriptive practices than ever before. This, along with recent technological developments, promises increased sharing and reuse of descriptive cataloging data.

0.020838942 = product of:
  0.08335577 = sum of:
    0.08335577 = weight(_text_:technological in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08335577 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.3522307 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

How do we define what technology is for humans? One perspective suggests that it is a tool enabling the use of valuable resources such as time, food, health and mobility. One could say that in its cultural history, humanity has developed a wide range of artefacts which enable the effective utilisation of these resources for the fulfilment of physiological, but also psychological, needs. This paper explores how this perspective may be used as an orientation for future technological innovation. Hence, the goal is to provide an accessible discussion of such a psychological perspective on technology development that could pave the way towards a truly human-centred digital transformation.

0.020106373 = product of:
  0.08042549 = sum of:
    0.08042549 = product of:
      0.16085099 = sum of:
        0.16085099 = weight(_text_:innovations in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16085099 = score(doc=1206,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30282074 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0445387 = queryNorm
            0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy-or lack thereof-affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

0.017365785 = product of:
  0.06946314 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 5764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=5764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 5764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5764)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is essential and almost imperative in modern science. However, collaboration may be difficult to achieve because of 2 major barriers: geographic distance and social divides. It is predicted that the advancement of information communication technologies (ICTs) will bring a puzzled conclusion for collaboration in the scientific community: the "Global Village" trend with significantly increased physical distance among collaborated scientists and the "Virtual Balkans" trend with significantly increased social stratification among collaborated scientists. The results of this study reveal that the scientific community evolves towards the Global Village generally on both the geographic and social dimension, but with variations in term of collaboration patterns. The influence of such collaboration patterns on research performance (that is, productivity and impact), however, is asymmetric to each side of collaborators. When researchers from top-tier and general-tier institutions collaborate, researchers from top-tier institutions face a decrease in research productivity and impact, whereas researchers from general-tier institutions increase in research productivity and impact. Furthermore, the development of ICTs plays an important role in shaping the evolving trends and moderating effects of collaboration patterns. Our findings provide a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration in the geographic, social, and technological aspect.

0.017365785 = product of:
  0.06946314 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 5776) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=5776,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 5776, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5776)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Digital information is fragile, yet access to digital information over time is a critical underpinning of core values and functions in our society, from open government to research and scholarship. Digital preservation research has focused on identifying technical, economic, and organizational sources of risk and has relied on an assumption that individuals will behave in rational and predictable ways in response to the same information. This article asserts that viewing digital preservation as a process that takes place in complex social contexts is just as important as thinking about digital preservation in terms of technological or economic issues. This is particularly important for understanding how individuals involved in digital preservation construct their understanding of risk because social factors influence how people construct their understanding of, and behave in response to, risk information. The author proposes an eight-factor model for the social construction of risk, which includes: communication, complexity, expertise, organizations, political culture, trust, uncertainty, and vulnerability. The article demonstrates how these factors influence individuals as they construct their understanding of risk in the context of digital preservation and how this in turn affects digital preservation decisions.

0.017365785 = product of:
  0.06946314 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 5947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=5947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 5947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5947)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The forced displacement and transnational migration of millions of people around the world is a growing phenomenon that has been met with increased surveillance and datafication by a variety of actors. Small humanitarian organizations that help irregular migrants in the United States frequently do not have the resources or expertise to fully address the implications of collecting, storing, and using data about the vulnerable populations they serve. As a result, there is a risk that their work could exacerbate the vulnerabilities of the very same migrants they are trying to help. In this study, we propose a conceptual framework for protecting privacy in the context of humanitarian information activities (HIA) with irregular migrants. We draw from a review of the academic literature as well as interviews with individuals affiliated with several US-based humanitarian organizations, higher education institutions, and nonprofit organizations that provide support to undocumented migrants. We discuss 3 primary issues: (i) HIA present both technological and human risks; (ii) the expectation of privacy self-management by vulnerable populations is problematic; and (iii) there is a need for robust, actionable, privacy-related guidelines for HIA. We suggest 5 recommendations to strengthen the privacy protection offered to undocumented migrants and other vulnerable populations.

0.017365785 = product of:
  0.06946314 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 5949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=5949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 5949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5949)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Digital assets of organizations are under constant threat from a wide assortment of nefarious actors. When threats materialize, the consequences can be significant. Most large organizations invest in a dedicated information security management (ISM) function to ensure that digital assets are protected. The ISM function conducts risk assessments, develops strategy, provides policies and training to define roles and guide behavior, and implements technological controls such as firewalls, antivirus, and encryption to restrict unauthorized access. Despite these protective measures, incidents (security breaches) will occur. Alongside the security management function, many organizations also retain an incident response (IR) function to mitigate damage from an attack and promptly restore digital services. However, few organizations integrate and learn from experiences of these functions in an optimal manner that enables them to not only respond to security incidents, but also proactively maneuver the threat environment. In this article we draw on organizational learning theory to develop a conceptual framework that explains how the ISM and IR functions can be better integrated. The strong integration of ISM and IR functions, in turn, creates learning opportunities that lead to organizational security benefits including: increased awareness of security risks, compilation of threat intelligence, removal of flaws in security defenses, evaluation of security defensive logic, and enhanced security response.

0.017365785 = product of:
  0.06946314 = sum of:
    0.06946314 = weight(_text_:technological in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06946314 = score(doc=5,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23665106 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0445387 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The benefits of open data for helping to address societal problems and strengthen communities are well recognized, and unfortunately previous studies found that smaller communities are often excluded from the current data ecosystem because of existing technological, technical, cognitive, and practical barriers. This study aims to investigate the process of communities' data use for community development and decision-making-focusing on the opportunities and challenges of data for communities. From the interviews with 25 staff from community-based organizations (CBOs) in nine small, medium, and large cities in the United States, the findings of this study describe data's role in supporting communities' development while reporting several major challenges that hinder CBOs data use: difficulty accessing data, limitations of open data (un-local nature, excluding essential data from being open), limited data capacity (especially in data literacy skills), and difficulties using and accessing existing data infrastructures. Our findings suggest opportunities for addressing these challenges, particularly by creating educational programming, building partnerships within data ecosystems, and bringing community voices forward in current data ecosystems, which are critical to realizing data's potential for all citizens.