Search (762 results, page 1 of 39)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Aspray, W.; Aspray, P.: Does technology really outpace policy, and does it matter? : a primer for technical experts and others (2023) 0.13 
    0.12755612 = product of:
  0.25511223 = sum of:
    0.0129694985 = weight(_text_:information in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0129694985 = score(doc=1017,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.108150855 = weight(_text_:united in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108150855 = score(doc=1017,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.13399187 = sum of:
      0.1041956 = weight(_text_:states in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1041956 = score(doc=1017,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.43020093 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
      0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029796265 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = 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(3/6)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.885-904
  2. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.12 
    0.12172574 = product of:
  0.24345148 = sum of:
    0.058215484 = product of:
      0.17464645 = sum of:
        0.17464645 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17464645 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37289858 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = 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)
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=1000,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.17464645 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17464645 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37289858 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = 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(3/6)
    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.
    Imprint
    Wien / Library and Information Studies : Universität
  3. Hottenrott, H.; Rose, M.E.; Lawson, C.: ¬The rise of multiple institutional affiliations in academia (2021) 0.11 
    0.10955624 = product of:
  0.21911249 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.108150855 = weight(_text_:united in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108150855 = score(doc=313,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.103473686 = sum of:
      0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07367742 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.304198 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
      0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029796265 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.8, S.1039-1058
  4. Robertson, C.: ¬The filing cabinet : a vertical history of information (2021) 0.10 
    0.09963586 = product of:
  0.19927172 = sum of:
    0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017971063 = score(doc=641,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
    0.122358724 = weight(_text_:united in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.122358724 = score(doc=641,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
    0.05894193 = product of:
      0.11788386 = sum of:
        0.11788386 = weight(_text_:states in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11788386 = score(doc=641,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    The ubiquity of the filing cabinet in the twentieth-century office space, along with its noticeable absence of style, has obscured its transformative role in the histories of both information technology and work. In the first in-depth history of this neglected artifact, Craig Robertson explores how the filing cabinet profoundly shaped the way that information and data have been sorted, stored, retrieved, and used. Invented in the 1890s, the filing cabinet was a result of the nineteenth-century faith in efficiency. Previously, paper records were arranged haphazardly: bound into books, stacked in piles, curled into slots, or impaled on spindles. The filing cabinet organized loose papers in tabbed folders that could be sorted alphanumerically, radically changing how people accessed, circulated, and structured information. Robertson's unconventional history of the origins of the information age posits the filing cabinet as an information storage container, an 'automatic memory' machine that contributed to a new type of information labor privileging manual dexterity over mental deliberation. Gendered assumptions about women's nimble fingers helped to naturalize the changes that brought women into the workforce as low-level clerical workers. The filing cabinet emerges from this unexpected account as a sophisticated piece of information technology and a site of gendered labor that with its folders, files, and tabs continues to shape how we interact with information and data in today's digital world.
    LCSH
    Sex role in the work environment / United States / History
    Sexual division of labor / United States / History
    Subject
    Sex role in the work environment / United States / History
    Sexual division of labor / United States / History
  5. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.09 
    0.093144774 = product of:
  0.27943432 = sum of:
    0.06985858 = product of:
      0.20957573 = sum of:
        0.20957573 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20957573 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37289858 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = 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)
    0.20957573 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20957573 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37289858 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = 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(2/6)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  6. Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y.: Professional organizations in Twittersphere : an empirical study of U.S. library and information science professional organizations-related Tweets (2020) 0.09 
    0.08839768 = product of:
  0.17679536 = sum of:
    0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018157298 = score(doc=5775,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
    0.10706388 = weight(_text_:united in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10706388 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.433885 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
    0.05157419 = product of:
      0.10314838 = sum of:
        0.10314838 = weight(_text_:states in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10314838 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Twitter is utilized by many, including professional businesses and organizations; however, there are very few studies on how other entities interact with these organizations in the Twittersphere. This article presents a study that investigates tweets related to 5 major library and information science (LIS) professional organizations in the United States. This study applies a systematic tweets analysis framework, including descriptive analytics, network analytics, and co-word analysis of hashtags. The findings shed light on user engagement with LIS professional organizations and the trending discussion topics on Twitter, which is valuable for enabling more successful social media use and greater influence.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.4, S.491-496
  7. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.08 
    0.078663625 = product of:
  0.15732725 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.13046396 = weight(_text_:networks in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13046396 = score(doc=918,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.6271047 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.415-433
  8. Xia, H.: What scholars and IRBs talk when they talk about the Belmont principles in crowd work-based research (2023) 0.07 
    0.072480515 = product of:
  0.14496103 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
    0.044206448 = product of:
      0.088412896 = sum of:
        0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088412896 = score(doc=843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    How scholars and IRBs perceive and apply the Belmont principles in crowd work-based research was an open and largely neglected question. As crowd work becomes increasingly popular for scholars to implement research and collect data, such negligence, signaling a lack of attention to the ethical issues in crowd work-based research more broadly, seemed alarming. To fill this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 32 scholars and IRB directors/analysts in the United States to inquire into their perceptions and applications of the Belmont principles in crowd work-based research. We found two dilemmas in applying the Belmont principles in crowd work-based research, namely the dilemma between the dehumanization and expected autonomy of crowd workers, and the dilemma between the monetary incentive/reputationall risks and the conventional notion of research benefits/risks. We also compared the scholars' and IRBs' ethical perspectives and proposed our research implications for future work.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.1, S.67-80
  9. Choo, C.W.; Meyer, M.: Information misbehavior : how organizations use information to deceive (2023) 0.07 
    0.06962595 = product of:
  0.1392519 = sum of:
    0.025938997 = weight(_text_:information in 1037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025938997 = score(doc=1037,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 1037, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1037)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 1037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=1037,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 1037, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1037)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 1037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=1037,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 1037, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Recent examples of organizational wrongdoing such as those that led to the opioid crisis and the 2008 financial meltdown show that organizations can deliberately use information to deceive others, resulting in serious harm. This brief communication explores the role of information in organizational wrongdoing. We analyze a dataset consisting of 80 cases of high-penalty corporate wrongdoing in the United States in the period 2000-2020. Our analysis of documents filed by the US Department of Justice and federal regulatory agencies in those cases found that organizations use two general information strategies to deceive and mislead. First, organizations can "sow doubt" on statements by others that hurt the organization's interests. Second, organizations can "exploit trust" that others have placed in them to provide truthful information. Our analysis suggests that which strategy is adopted depends on the degree that the organization's external information use environment is "contested" or "controlled." Across the cases examined, we observe three types of information behaviors that implement the strategy of sowing doubt and exploiting trust: information obfuscation, information concealment, and information falsification.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.9, S.1081-1085
  10. Mehra, B.: Toward an impact-driven framework to operationalize social justice and implement ICT4D in the field of information (2023) 0.07 
    0.06849593 = product of:
  0.13699186 = sum of:
    0.023678957 = weight(_text_:information in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023678957 = score(doc=1088,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30666938 = fieldWeight in 1088, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1088)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 1088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1088)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 1088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Information researchers can further social justice and social equity to meet the needs of minority and underserved populations experiencing intersecting modes of cultural marginalization. Scholars of information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) can find overlooked intersections with social justice in "community networking" research since the 1980s to overcome the digital divides between the haves and have-nots. To frame social justice initiatives within a consolidated vision of ICT4D in the field of information, this article proposes an impact-driven framework, expounded through five interrelated elements: why (motivations), with who (engaged constituencies), how (at external and internal levels to change traditional practices), and toward what (goal). It is explicated through select historical instances of "community networking" and digital divides, ICT4D, and social justice intersections. Significance of the elements is also demonstrated via this author's select information-related social justice research conducted in the United States. The urgency for critical and reflective conversations is important owing to historically abstracted human information behavior theory development within information research outdated in multiple contextualized needs of contemporary times. Historically situating impact-driven social justice research is important to further the relevance, existence, and growth of the information field as it strengthens its ties with ICT4D.
    Content
    Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on ICT4D and intersections with the information field. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24693.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.12, S.1419-1436
  11. Choi, W.: Older adults' credibility assessment of online health information : an exploratory study using an extended typology of web credibility (2020) 0.07 
    0.067888364 = product of:
  0.13577673 = sum of:
    0.022463826 = weight(_text_:information in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022463826 = score(doc=7,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Credibility assessment is a crucial component in the process of people's health information seeking, especially in the web context. Finding "credible" health information from a plethora of information on the web may be more challenging for older adults, who have relatively less experience with the Internet. This article reports on the findings of an exploratory study of older adults' credibility assessments of online health information. The data collected through semistructured interviews with 21 older adult Internet users in the United States were analyzed based on the extended typology of web credibility (Choi & Stvilia, 2015, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 2399-2414). The findings of the study revealed that older adults paid closer attention to operator-related credibility cues and heuristics when judging the credibility of health information on the web, followed by content- and design-related ones. Also, the findings suggest that participants who were younger and used the Internet more frequently employed a wider variety of cues and heuristics to evaluate the credibility of online health information. Based on these findings, both theoretical and practical implications of the research and future research directions are discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.11, S.1295-1307
  12. Choo, C.W.: Climate change information seeking (2023) 0.07 
    0.067888364 = product of:
  0.13577673 = sum of:
    0.022463826 = weight(_text_:information in 1038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022463826 = score(doc=1038,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 1038, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1038)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 1038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=1038,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 1038, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1038)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 1038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=1038,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 1038, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1038)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    This research develops and tests a model of individual intentions to actively seek information about climate change. Our premise is that the individual's intention to actively seek information about climate change would determine their knowledge of and attitudes towards climate change, and this would in turn influence how they act or change their behaviors in response to that risk. Our model identifies key cognitive, affective, and situational variables drawn from research in human information behavior and risk communication. We conducted an online survey in which 212 participants in Canada and the United States responded. The results showed that the model was able to explain more than 40% of the variance in intention to seek climate change information. Social Norms, Affective Response, and Social Trust were the most important variables in influencing intention to seek climate change information. We conclude that climate change information seeking has a strong social dimension where social norms and expectations of relevant and respected others exert a major influence, and that the individual's emotional response towards the risk of climate change is more important than the individual's cognitive perception of how much information they need on climate change.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.9, S.1086-1099
  13. Chan, M.; Daniels, J.; Furger, S.; Rasmussen, D.; Shoemaker, E.; Snow, K.: ¬The development and future of the cataloguing code of ethics (2022) 0.07 
    0.06766179 = product of:
  0.20298538 = sum of:
    0.15141119 = weight(_text_:united in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15141119 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.6136061 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.05157419 = product of:
      0.10314838 = sum of:
        0.10314838 = weight(_text_:states in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10314838 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The Cataloguing Code of Ethics, released in January 2021, was the product of a multi-national, multi-year endeavor by the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee to create a useful framework for the discussion of cataloging ethics. The six Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee members, based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, recount the efforts of the group and the cataloging community leading up to the release of the Code, as well as provide their thoughts on the challenges of creating the document, lessons learned, and the future of the Code.
  14. Kriesberg, A.; Acker, A.: ¬The second US presidential social media transition : how private platforms impact the digital preservation of public records (2022) 0.06 
    0.064144395 = product of:
  0.12828879 = sum of:
    0.014975886 = weight(_text_:information in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014975886 = score(doc=751,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    A second presidential social media transition in the United States occurred as Joe Biden took office on January 20, 2021. In the years since Barack Obama pioneered the use of platforms like Facebook and Twitter while President, Donald Trump shaped his Presidency around the use of Twitter, primarily through a personal account created before entering politics. In this paper, we examine Donald Trump's use of Twitter during his presidency as a lens through which to understand the ongoing archival preservation and data management challenges posed by social media platforms. The blurred lines between public and private records, deleting tweets, and the preservation issues that appeared after his suspension from Twitter and other platforms following the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol all highlight an urgent, ongoing need by archivists, digital preservationists, and information scholars to consider how we might collect and manage social media records in an ever-changing information landscape. This paper draws primarily on publicly available information from existing preservation initiatives to analyze the state of digital preservation for presidential records. Our findings highlight how both public and private entities manage and provide access to Donald Trump's tweets, pointing to broader implications for social media data preservation.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.11, S.1529-1542
  15. Stark, L.; Stanhaus, A.; Anthony, D.L.: "I don't want someone to watch me while I'm working" : gendered views of facial recognition technology in workplace surveillance (2020) 0.06 
    0.063141204 = product of:
  0.12628241 = sum of:
    0.0129694985 = weight(_text_:information in 5938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0129694985 = score(doc=5938,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5938, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5938)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 5938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=5938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 5938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5938)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 5938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=5938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 5938, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Employers are increasingly using information and communication technologies to monitor employees. Such workplace surveillance is extensive in the United States, but its experience and potential consequences differ across groups based on gender. We thus sought to identify whether self-reported male and female employees differ in the extent to which they find the use of workplace cameras equipped with facial recognition technology (FRT) acceptable, and examine the role of privacy attitudes more generally in mediating views on workplace surveillance. Using data from a nationally representative survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, we find that women are much less likely than men to approve of the use of cameras using FRT in the workplace. We then further explore whether men and women think differently about privacy, and if perceptions of privacy moderate the relationship between gender and approval of workplace surveillance. Finally, we consider the implications of these findings for privacy and surveillance via embedded technologies, and how the consequences of surveillance and technologies like FRT may be gendered. Note: We recognize evaluations based on a binary definition of gender are invariably partial and exclusionary. As we note in our discussion of the study's limitations, we were constrained by the survey categories provided by Pew.
    Series
    Special issue: Information privacy in the digital age
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.9, S.1074-1088
  16. Vannini, S.; Gomez, R.; Newell, B.C.: "Mind the five" : guidelines for data privacy and security in humanitarian work with undocumented migrants and other vulnerable populations (2020) 0.06 
    0.061951227 = product of:
  0.123902455 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 5947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=5947,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5947, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5947)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 5947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=5947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 5947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5947)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 5947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=5947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 5947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.8, S.927-938
  17. Chipidza, W.; Yan, J.(K.): ¬The effectiveness of flagging content belonging to prominent individuals : the case of Donald Trump on Twitter (2022) 0.06 
    0.061951227 = product of:
  0.123902455 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=745,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    There is vigorous debate as to whether influential social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook should censor objectionable posts by prominent individuals in the United States and elsewhere. A tentative middle ground is employing content moderation to signal to social media audiences that certain posts may contain objectionable information through the mechanism of flagging. Existing studies have mainly examined the effect of flagging regular users' content. To add to this emerging literature stream, we examine the effect of flagging when the underlying content is produced by a prominent individual. Leveraging Twitter's moderation activities on former U.S. President Donald Trump's tweets as our empirical setting, we employ three machine learning algorithms to estimate the effect of flagging Trump's tweets. We explore preliminary evidence as to whether these posts were retweeted less or more than expected. Our results indicate that the flagged tweets were retweeted at higher rates than expected. Our findings suggest that flagging content of prominent individuals on social media might be ineffective or even counterproductive in curbing the spread of content deemed objectionable by social media companies.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.11, S.1641-1658
  18. Kratochwil, F.; Peltonen, H.: Constructivism (2022) 0.06 
    0.06043355 = product of:
  0.18130066 = sum of:
    0.122358724 = weight(_text_:united in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.122358724 = score(doc=829,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.05894193 = product of:
      0.11788386 = sum of:
        0.11788386 = weight(_text_:states in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11788386 = score(doc=829,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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.
  19. Yoon, A.; Copeland, A.: Toward community-inclusive data ecosystems : challenges and opportunities of open data for community-based organizations (2020) 0.06 
    0.060400426 = product of:
  0.12080085 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=5,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=5,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=5,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.12, S.1439-1454
  20. Stephens, B.; Cummings, J.N.: Knowledge creation through collaboration : the role of shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity (2021) 0.06 
    0.060400426 = product of:
  0.12080085 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    This paper examines how shared affiliations within an institution (e.g., same primary appointment, same secondary appointment, same research center, same laboratory/facility) and physical proximity (e.g., walking distance between collaborator offices) shape knowledge creation through biomedical science collaboration in general, and interdisciplinary collaboration in particular. Using archival and publication data, we examine pairwise research collaborations among 1,138 faculty members over a 12-year period at a medical school in the United States. Modeling at the dyadic level, we find that faculty members with more shared institutional affiliations are positively associated with knowledge creation and knowledge impact, and that this association is moderated by the physical proximity of collaborators. We further find that the positive influence of disciplinary diversity (e.g., collaborators from different fields) on knowledge impact is stronger among pairs that share more affiliations and is significantly reduced as the physical distance among collaborators increases. These results support the idea that shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity can increase interpersonal contact, providing more opportunities to develop trust and mutual understanding, and thus alleviating some of the coordination issues that can arise with higher disciplinary diversity. We discuss the implications for future research on scientific collaborations, managerial practice regarding office space allocation, and strategic planning of initiatives aimed at promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.11, S.1337-1353

Authors

Languages

  • e 649
  • d 108
  • pt 3
  • m 2
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 717
  • el 75
  • m 23
  • p 7
  • s 6
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications