Search (2621 results, page 2 of 132)

0.071903065 = product of:
  0.14380613 = sum of:
    0.14380613 = sum of:
      0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1025501 = score(doc=3551,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 3551, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3551)
      0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 3551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041256037 = score(doc=3551,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3551, 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=3551)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper presents the results of research concerning the websites of libraries in the region of Podlasie, Poland. It contains both the results of quantitative surface research, covering the contents of library websites, and a detailed analysis of three subjects: information about literature, borderland knowledge and formal website quality assessment. It also gives reasons why small local libraries should have a strong presence in virtual space. The results of the research show that only a small number of public libraries in Podlasie have the will to share knowledge and information with their users through library websites, and there is still a lot to be done concerning the quality of information in and the websites themselves.

Date

4. 6.2010 19:22:36

0.071903065 = product of:
  0.14380613 = sum of:
    0.14380613 = sum of:
      0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1025501 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
      0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041256037 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4199, 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=4199)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Educational standards are a central focus of the current educational system in the United States, underpinning educational practice, curriculum design, teacher professional development, and high-stakes testing and assessment. Digital library users have requested that this information be accessible in association with digital learning resources to support teaching and learning as well as accountability requirements. Providing this information is complex because of the variability and number of standards documents in use at the national, state, and local level. This article describes a cataloging tool that aids catalogers in the assignment of standards metadata to digital library resources, using natural language processing techniques. The research explores whether the standards suggestor service would suggest the same standards as a human, whether relevant standards are ranked appropriately in the result set, and whether the relevance of the suggested assignments improve when, in addition to resource content, metadata is included in the query to the cataloging tool. The article also discusses how this service might streamline the cataloging workflow.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:25:32

0.071903065 = product of:
  0.14380613 = sum of:
    0.14380613 = sum of:
      0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1025501 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041256037 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.068366736 = product of:
  0.13673347 = sum of:
    0.13673347 = product of:
      0.27346694 = sum of:
        0.27346694 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27346694 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.9759876 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.068366736 = product of:
  0.13673347 = sum of:
    0.13673347 = product of:
      0.27346694 = sum of:
        0.27346694 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27346694 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.9759876 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.068366736 = product of:
  0.13673347 = sum of:
    0.13673347 = product of:
      0.27346694 = sum of:
        0.27346694 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27346694 = score(doc=4616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.9759876 = fieldWeight in 4616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.068366736 = product of:
  0.13673347 = sum of:
    0.13673347 = product of:
      0.27346694 = sum of:
        0.27346694 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27346694 = score(doc=5814,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.9759876 = fieldWeight in 5814, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5814)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Provides practical advice and guidance to subject librarians in UK academic libraries preparing for teaching quality assessment (TQA) visits. Suggests what action librarians should take prior to an assessment visit, including forms of departmental liaison. Provides a comprehensive checklist, arranged into six broad categories, of those issues which can be raised by assessors. Describes the author's recent experiences of TQA for science and engineering subjects at the University of Edinburgh. Indicates what action should be taken after the assessment visit.

0.06783052 = product of:
  0.13566104 = sum of:
    0.13566104 = product of:
      0.27132207 = sum of:
        0.27132207 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27132207 = score(doc=1323,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.96833277 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses the rapidly emerging field of computer-based assessment for adaptive content in e-learning (National Research Council, 2001), which we call differentiated e-learning. In e-learning products, a variety of assessment approaches are being used for such diverse purposes as adaptive delivery of content, individualizing learning materials, dynamic feedback, cognitive diagnosis, score reporting, and course placement (Gifford, 2001). A recent paper at the General Teaching Council Conference in London, England, on teaching, learning, and accountability described assessment for personalized learning through e-learning products as a quiet revolution taking place in education (Hopkins, 2004). In our study, we examine approaches for the use of assessment evidence in e-learning in four case studies. The products in the case studies were selected for exhibiting at least one exemplary aspect regarding assessment and measurement. The principles of the Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment Research Center Assessment System (Wilson & Sloane, 2000) are used as a framework of analysis for these products with respect to key measurement principles.

0.06717118 = product of:
  0.13434236 = sum of:
    0.13434236 = product of:
      0.40302706 = sum of:
        0.40302706 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40302706 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43026417 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.06279886 = product of:
  0.12559772 = sum of:
    0.12559772 = product of:
      0.25119543 = sum of:
        0.25119543 = weight(_text_:assessment in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25119543 = score(doc=34,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.8965019 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article identifies a number of research topics related broadly to outcomes assessment in a networked environment and discusses issues affecting these research topics. It also proposes a framework to relate traditional evaluation components and terminology to the networked environment and identifies a number of factors in the networked environment that affect outcomes and other assessment methods. The article suggests that outcomes assessment has the potential to complement other assessment techniques to better assist libraries and related information organizations enhance their decisions in the provision of information services and resources. Given the increased rate at which libraries are using the networked environment to provide services and resources, however, much work remains before most libraries can implement outcomes assessment efforts successfully.

0.06042823 = product of:
  0.12085646 = sum of:
    0.12085646 = product of:
      0.24171291 = sum of:
        0.24171291 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24171291 = score(doc=1502,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.86265934 = fieldWeight in 1502, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The increasing technicalization of knowledge calls for a school of thought in technology assessment which occupies itself with the cognitive foundations of knowledge technology and the consequences and effects of the technicalization of knowledge. The present contribution hopes to stimulate ISKO into taking an interest in this problem field

0.06042823 = product of:
  0.12085646 = sum of:
    0.12085646 = product of:
      0.24171291 = sum of:
        0.24171291 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24171291 = score(doc=2212,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.86265934 = fieldWeight in 2212, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article introduces the Multidimensional Research Assessment Matrix of scientific output. Its base notion holds that the choice of metrics to be applied in a research assessment process depends on the unit of assessment, the research dimension to be assessed, and the purposes and policy context of the assessment. An indicator may by highly useful within one assessment process, but less so in another. For instance, publication counts are useful tools to help discriminate between those staff members who are research active, and those who are not, but are of little value if active scientists are to be compared with one another according to their research performance. This paper gives a systematic account of the potential usefulness and limitations of a set of 10 important metrics, including altmetrics, applied at the level of individual articles, individual researchers, research groups, and institutions. It presents a typology of research impact dimensions and indicates which metrics are the most appropriate to measure each dimension. It introduces the concept of a "meta-analysis" of the units under assessment in which metrics are not used as tools to evaluate individual units, but to reach policy inferences regarding the objectives and general setup of an assessment process.

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=4902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 4902, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4902)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=4902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4902, 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=4902)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article a social constructionist approach to information technology (IT) literacy is introduced. This approach contributes to the literature an IT literacy by introducing the concept of IT self as a description of the momentary, context-dependent, and multilayered nature of interpretations of IT competencies. In the research litersture, IT literacy is offen defined as sets of basic skills to be learned, and competencies to be demonstrated. In line with this approach, research an IT competencies conventionally develops models for explaining user acceptance, and for measuring computer-related attitudes and skills. The assumption is that computerrelated attitudes and seif-efficacy impact IT adoption and success in computer use. Computer seif-efficacy measures are, however, often based an seif-assessments that measure interpretations of skills rather than performance in practice. An analysis of empirical interview data in which academic researchers discuss their relationships with computers and IT competence shows how a seif-assessment such as "computer anxiety" presented in one discussion context can in another discussion context be consigned to the past in favor of a different and more positive version. Here it is argued that descriptions of IT competencies and computer-related attitudes are dialogic social constructs and closely tied with more general implicit understandings of the nature of technical artifacts and technical knowledge. These implicit theories and assumptions are rarely taken under scrutiny in discussions of IT literacy yet they have profound implications for the aims and methods in teaching computer skills.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.13-22

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 143, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=143)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 143, 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=143)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google News and other newsbots have automated the process of news selection, providing Internet users with a virtually limitless array of news and public information dynamically culled from thousands of news organizations all over the world. In order to help users cope with the resultant overload of information, news leads are typically accompanied by three cues: (a) the name of the primary source from which the headline and lead were borrowed, (b) the time elapsed since the story broke, and (c) the number of related articles written about this story by other news organizations tracked by the newsbot. This article investigates the psychological significance of these cues by positing that the information scent transmitted by each cue triggers a distinct heuristic (mental shortcut) that tends to influence online users' perceptions of a given news item, with implications for their assessment of the item's relevance to their information needs and interests. A large 2 x 3 x 6 withinsubjects online experiment (N = 523) systematically varied two levels of the source credibility cue, three levels of the upload recency cue and six levels of the number-ofrelated-articles cue in an effort to investigate their effects upon perceived message credibility, newsworthiness, and likelihood of clicking on the news lead. Results showed evidence for source primacy effect, and some indication of a cue-cumulation effect when source credibility is low. Findings are discussed in the context of machine and bandwagon heuristics.

Date

7. 3.2007 16:22:24

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4607, 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=4607)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Smart applications behave intelligently because they understand at least partially the context where they operate. To do this, they need not only a formal domain model but also formal descriptions of the data they process and their own operational behaviour. Interoperability of smart applications is based on formalised definitions of all their data and processes. This paper studies the semantic interoperability of data in the case of eLearning and describes an experiment and its assessment. New content is imported into a knowledge-based learning environment without real updates of the original domain model, which is encoded as a knowledge base of conceptual graphs. A component called mediator enables the import by assigning dummy metadata annotations for the imported items. However, some functionality of the original system is lost, when processing the imported content, due to the lack of proper metadata annotation which cannot be associated fully automatically. So the paper presents an interoperability scenario when appropriate content items are viewed from the perspective of the original world and can be (partially) reused there.

Source

Conceptual structures: knowledge architectures for smart applications: 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2007, Sheffield, UK, July 22 - 27, 2007 ; proceedings. Eds.: U. Priss u.a

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 496, 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=496)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This project develops the concept of sustainable information practice within the field of information science. The inquiry is grounded by data from a study of 2 ecovillages, intentional communities striving to ground their daily activities in a set of core values related to sustainability. Ethnographic methods employed for over 2 years resulted in data from hundreds of hours of participant observation, semistructured interviews with 22 community members, and a diverse collection of community images and texts. Analysis of the data highlights the tensions that arose and remained as community members experienced breakdowns between community values related to sustainability and their daily information practices. Contributions to the field of information science include the development of the concept of sustainable information practice, an analysis of why community members felt unable to adapt their information practices to better match community concepts of sustainability, and an assessment of the methodological challenges of information practice inquiry within a communal, nonwork environment. Most broadly, this work contributes to our larger understanding of the challenges faced by those attempting to identify and develop more sustainable information practices. In addition, findings from this investigation call into question previous claims that groups of individuals with strong value commitments can adapt their use of information tools to better support their values. In contrast, this work suggests that information practices can be particularly resilient to local, value-based adaptation.

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2643, 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=2643)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Large amounts of health-related information of different types are available on the web. In addition to authoritative health information sites maintained by government health departments and healthcare institutions, there are many social media sites carrying user-contributed information. This study sought to identify the types of drug information available on consumer-contributed drug review sites when compared with authoritative drug information websites. Content analysis was performed on the information available for nine drugs on three authoritative sites (RxList, eMC, and PDRhealth) as well as three drug review sites (WebMD, RateADrug, and PatientsLikeMe). The types of information found on authoritative sites but rarely on drug review sites include pharmacology, special population considerations, contraindications, and drug interactions. Types of information found only on drug review sites include drug efficacy, drug resistance experienced by long-term users, cost of drug in relation to insurance coverage, availability of generic forms, comparison with other similar drugs and with other versions of the drug, difficulty in using the drug, and advice on coping with side effects. Drug efficacy ratings by users were found to be different across the three sites. Side effects were vividly described in context, with user assessment of severity based on discomfort and effect on their lives.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:24:05

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 3343, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3343)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

User-generated content is one of the most interesting phenomena of current published media, as users are now able not only to consume, but also to produce content in a much faster and easier manner. However, such freedom also carries concerns about content quality. In this work, we propose an automatic framework to assess the quality of collaboratively generated content. Quality is addressed as a multidimensional concept, modeled as a combination of independent assessments, each regarding different quality dimensions. Accordingly, we adopt a machine-learning (ML)-based multiview approach to assess content quality. We perform a thorough analysis of our framework on two different domains: Questions and Answer Forums and Collaborative Encyclopedias. This allowed us to better understand when and how the proposed multiview approach is able to provide accurate quality assessments. Our main contributions are: (a) a general ML multiview framework that takes advantage of different views of quality indicators; (b) the improvement (up to 30%) in quality assessment over the best state-of-the-art baseline methods; (c) a thorough feature and view analysis regarding impact, informativeness, and correlation, based on two distinct domains.

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.059919223 = product of:
  0.11983845 = sum of:
    0.11983845 = sum of:
      0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08545842 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.