Search (130 results, page 1 of 7)

0.07761824 = product of:
  0.15523648 = sum of:
    0.15523648 = sum of:
      0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12085646 = score(doc=330,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.

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.

0.056525435 = product of:
  0.11305087 = sum of:
    0.11305087 = product of:
      0.22610174 = sum of:
        0.22610174 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22610174 = score(doc=5508,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.806944 = fieldWeight in 5508, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To understand and improve their current abilities and maturity, organizations use diagnostic instruments such as maturity models and other assessment frameworks. Increasing numbers of these are being developed in digital curation. Their central role in strategic decision making raises the need to evaluate their fitness for this purpose and develop guidelines for their design and evaluation. A comprehensive review of assessment frameworks, however, found little evidence that existing assessment frameworks have been evaluated systematically, and no methods for their evaluation. This article proposes a new methodology for evaluating the design and use of assessment frameworks. It builds on prior research on maturity models and combines analytic and empirical evaluation methods to explain how the design of assessment frameworks influences their application in practice, and how the design process can effectively take this into account. We present the evaluation methodology and its application to two frameworks. The evaluation results lead to guidelines for the design process of assessment frameworks in digital curation. The methodology provides insights to the designers of the evaluated frameworks that they can consider in future revisions; methodical guidance for researchers in the field; and practical insights and words of caution to organizations keen on diagnosing their abilities.

0.041865904 = product of:
  0.08373181 = sum of:
    0.08373181 = product of:
      0.16746362 = sum of:
        0.16746362 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16746362 = score(doc=5868,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.59766793 = fieldWeight in 5868, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Most research efforts related to automatic readability assessment focus on the design of strategies that apply to a specific language. These state-of-the-art strategies are highly dependent on linguistic features that best suit the language for which they were intended, constraining their adaptability and making it difficult to determine whether they would remain effective if they were applied to estimate the level of difficulty of texts in other languages. In this article, we present the results of a study designed to determine the feasibility of a cross-lingual readability assessment strategy. For doing so, we first analyzed the most common features used for readability assessment and determined their influence on the readability prediction process of 6 different languages: English, Spanish, Basque, Italian, French, and Catalan. In addition, we developed a cross-lingual readability assessment strategy that serves as a means to empirically explore the potential advantages of employing a single strategy (and set of features) for readability assessment in different languages, including interlanguage prediction agreement and prediction accuracy improvement for low-resource languages.Friend request acceptance and information disclosure constitute 2 important privacy decisions for users to control the flow of their personal information in social network sites (SNSs). These decisions are greatly influenced by contextual characteristics of the request. However, the contextual influence may not be uniform among users with different levels of privacy concerns. In this study, we hypothesize that users with higher privacy concerns may consider contextual factors differently from those with lower privacy concerns. By conducting a scenario-based survey study and structural equation modeling, we verify the interaction effects between privacy concerns and contextual factors. We additionally find that users' perceived risk towards the requester mediates the effect of context and privacy concerns. These results extend our understanding about the cognitive process behind privacy decision making in SNSs. The interaction effects suggest strategies for SNS providers to predict user's friend request acceptance and to customize context-aware privacy decision support based on users' different privacy attitudes.

0.040302705 = product of:
  0.08060541 = sum of:
    0.08060541 = product of:
      0.24181622 = sum of:
        0.24181622 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24181622 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43026417 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.037004586 = product of:
  0.07400917 = sum of:
    0.07400917 = product of:
      0.14801835 = sum of:
        0.14801835 = weight(_text_:assessment in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14801835 = score(doc=328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.5282689 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fake news is considered one of the main threats of our society. The aim of fake news is usually to confuse readers and trigger intense emotions to them in an attempt to be spread through social networks. Even though recent studies have explored the effectiveness of different linguistic patterns for fake news detection, the role of emotional signals has not yet been explored. In this paper, we focus on extracting emotional signals from claims and evaluating their effectiveness on credibility assessment. First, we explore different methodologies for extracting the emotional signals that can be triggered to the users when they read a claim. Then, we present emoCred, a model that is based on a long-short term memory model that incorporates emotional signals extracted from the text of the claims to differentiate between credible and non-credible ones. In addition, we perform an analysis to understand which emotional signals and which terms are the most useful for the different credibility classes. We conduct extensive experiments and a thorough analysis on real-world datasets. Our results indicate the importance of incorporating emotional signals in the credibility assessment problem.

0.034183368 = product of:
  0.068366736 = sum of:
    0.068366736 = product of:
      0.13673347 = sum of:
        0.13673347 = weight(_text_:assessment in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13673347 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die Forschungsgruppe Search Studies forscht an der HAW Hamburg zur Nutzung kommerzieller Suchmaschinen, zur Suchmaschinenoptimierung und zum Relevance Assessment von Suchmaschinen. Der Leiter der Forschungsgruppe, Prof. Dr. Dirk Lewandowski, stand für ein Interview zu seiner Tätigkeit und der seines Teams, sowie seiner Lehre an der HAW Hamburg zur Verfügung. Sollten wir Informationen aus dem Internet vertrauen oder ist Vorsicht angebracht?

0.03358559 = product of:
  0.06717118 = sum of:
    0.06717118 = product of:
      0.20151353 = sum of:
        0.20151353 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20151353 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43026417 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.03358559 = product of:
  0.06717118 = sum of:
    0.06717118 = product of:
      0.20151353 = sum of:
        0.20151353 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20151353 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43026417 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.030214114 = product of:
  0.06042823 = sum of:
    0.06042823 = product of:
      0.12085646 = sum of:
        0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12085646 = score(doc=7,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.030214114 = product of:
  0.06042823 = sum of:
    0.06042823 = product of:
      0.12085646 = sum of:
        0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12085646 = score(doc=769,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey-and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top-tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top-tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top-tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top-tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric-informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs.

0.030214114 = product of:
  0.06042823 = sum of:
    0.06042823 = product of:
      0.12085646 = sum of:
        0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12085646 = score(doc=849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

ChatGPT, a general-purpose conversation chatbot released on November 30, 2022, by OpenAI, is expected to impact every aspect of society. However, the potential impacts of this NLP tool on education remain unknown. Such impact can be enormous as the capacity of ChatGPT may drive changes to educational learning goals, learning activities, and assessment and evaluation practices. This study was conducted by piloting ChatGPT to write an academic paper, titled Artificial Intelligence for Education (see Appendix A). The piloting result suggests that ChatGPT is able to help researchers write a paper that is coherent, (partially) accurate, informative, and systematic. The writing is extremely efficient (2-3 hours) and involves very limited professional knowledge from the author. Drawing upon the user experience, I reflect on the potential impacts of ChatGPT, as well as similar AI tools, on education. The paper concludes by suggesting adjusting learning goals-students should be able to use AI tools to conduct subject-domain tasks and education should focus on improving students' creativity and critical thinking rather than general skills. To accomplish the learning goals, researchers should design AI-involved learning tasks to engage students in solving real-world problems. ChatGPT also raises concerns that students may outsource assessment tasks. This paper concludes that new formats of assessments are needed to focus on creativity and critical thinking that AI cannot substitute.

0.030214114 = product of:
  0.06042823 = sum of:
    0.06042823 = product of:
      0.12085646 = sum of:
        0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12085646 = score(doc=947,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.

0.029910447 = product of:
  0.059820894 = sum of:
    0.059820894 = product of:
      0.11964179 = sum of:
        0.11964179 = weight(_text_:assessment in 48) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11964179 = score(doc=48,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.4269946 = fieldWeight in 48, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=48)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, we provide an introduction to the concept of digital object reuse and its various connotations in the context of current digital libraries, archives, and repositories. We will then propose a faceted categorization of the various types, contexts, and cases for digital object reuse in order to facilitate understanding and communication and to provide a conceptual framework for the assessment of digital object reuse by various cultural heritage and cultural memory organizations.

0.029910447 = product of:
  0.059820894 = sum of:
    0.059820894 = product of:
      0.11964179 = sum of:
        0.11964179 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11964179 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.4269946 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users' information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.

0.025637524 = product of:
  0.05127505 = sum of:
    0.05127505 = product of:
      0.1025501 = sum of:
        0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1025501 = score(doc=5676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 5676, 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=5676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article offers an adjustment to the recently developed Euclidean Index (Perry and Reny, 2016). The proposed companion metric reflects the impact of the journal in which an article appears; the rationale for incorporating this information is to reflect higher costs of production and higher review standards, and to mitigate the heavily truncated citation counts that often arise in promotion, renewal, and tenure deliberations. Additionally, focusing jointly on citations and journal impact diversifies the assessment process, and can thereby help avoid misjudging scholars with modest citation counts in high-level journals. A combination of both metrics is also proposed, which nests each as a special case. The approach is demonstrated using a generic journal ranking metric, but can be adapted to most any stated or revealed preference measure of journal impact.

0.024066022 = product of:
  0.048132043 = sum of:
    0.048132043 = product of:
      0.09626409 = sum of:
        0.09626409 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09626409 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=5677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 5677, 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=5677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to understand if and how 2 proposed facets of self-identity (work-self and career-self) and journals' perceived quality (impact, visibility, and content quality) influence and explain the intention to publish in open access (OA) or nonopen access (non-OA) journals. This study integrates attitude and identity theory within a cross-sectional survey design. The sample consists of about 1,600 researchers in Norway, and the data were collected via e-mail invitation using a digital surveying tool and analyzed using structural equation modeling techniques. We determined that perceived impact-quality increases the intention to publish non-OA, while decreasing the intention to publish OA. Content quality is only associated with non-OA journals. Perceived visibility increases the intention to publish OA, while the opposite effect is found for non-OA. Career-self salience has the strongest effect on impact-quality, while content quality is most important when work-self is salient. This research contributes to a deeper understanding about how perceived quality influences intention to publish in OA and non-OA journals, and how self-identity salience affects different facets of perceived quality in valence and strength. Findings have implications for policy development, implementation, and assessment and may contribute to improving OA adoption.

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=5711,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 5711, 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=5711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Information literacy and health literacy skills are positively correlated with indicators of quality of life. Assessing these literacies, however, can be daunting - particularly with people that may not respond well to prose-based tools. The purpose of this paper is to use information horizons methodology as a metric that may be reflective of literacies. Design/methodology/approach Following a power analysis to insure statistical significance, a sample of 161 participants was recruited from a university population and given formal, vetted measures of information literacy and health literacy and then was asked to create an information horizons map within a health-related context. The information horizons maps were evaluated in two different ways. First, the number of sources was counted. Then, the quality of sources was factored in. Multiple regression analysis was applied to both metrics as independent variables with the other assessments as dependent variables. Anker, Reinhart, and Feeley's model provided the conceptual framework for the study. Findings Information horizons mapping was not found to have a significant relationship with measures of information literacy. However, there were strong, statistically significant relationships with the measures of health literacy employed in this study. Originality/value Employing information horizons methodology as a means of providing a metric to assess literacies may be helpful in providing a more complete picture of a person's abilities. While the current assessment tools have value, this method has the potential to provide important information about the health literacy of people who are not traditionally well represented by prose-based measures.