Search (4082 results, page 2 of 205)

0.07761824 = product of:
  0.15523648 = sum of:
    0.15523648 = sum of:
      0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12085646 = score(doc=1471,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 1471, 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=1471)
      0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 1471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438003 = score(doc=1471,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1471, 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=1471)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper proposes an assessment of Paul Otlet's Documentation anchored in Birger Hjørland's argument that the field of Knowledge Organization (KO) must be formed by two interdependent views, a broad conception on how knowledge is socially and intellectually produced and organized, and a narrow view that deals with the organization of the documents that register knowledge. Otlet's conceptions of individual and collective knowledge are addressed, as well as the role of documents in its conservation and communication, in order to show how the intended universal application of Documentation's principles and methods was supposed to make registered knowledge easily accessible and clearly apprehended as a unified whole. It concludes that Otlet's Documentation fulfils in its own context the requirement claimed by Hjørland for the KO field of narrow conceptions being sustained by broader views of the organization of knowledge, and therefore qualifies itself as a historical component of KO, being capable of contributing as such to its epistemological and theoretical discussions.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

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.

0.071903065 = product of:
  0.14380613 = sum of:
    0.14380613 = sum of:
      0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1025501 = score(doc=3022,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 3022, 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=3022)
      0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 3022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041256037 = score(doc=3022,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3022, 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=3022)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Provides functional performance data drawn from an analysis of the capabilities and functionality of 3 major library automation systems: HORIZON, INNOPAC and Virginia Tech Library System (VTLS). The assessment was based on vendor input as well as on feedback from libraries of different types from different parts of the world. Objective criteria based on a numerical scoring scheme was used to assess system performance in 6 major functional areas: acquisition; cataloguing; circulation; OPAC; reference and information services; and serials control. The functional performance data is expected to be useful for libraries loking for new systems as well as those already computerised and interested in enhancing their present systems. In addition, data on the extent of the utilisation of system capabilities by libraries should also be of interest to system vendors

Date

22. 2.1999 14:03:24

0.071903065 = product of:
  0.14380613 = sum of:
    0.14380613 = sum of:
      0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1025501 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 4897, 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=4897)
      0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041256037 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4897, 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=4897)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Texas A&M University Libraries developed a Web-based training (WBT) application for LandView III, a federal depository CD-ROM publication using cross-browser dynamic HTML (DHTML) and other Web technologies. The interactive and self-paced tutorial demonstrates the major features of the CD-ROM and shows how to navigate the programs. The tutorial features dynamic HTML techniques, such as hiding, showing and moving layers; dragging objects; and windows-style drop-down menus. It also integrates interactive forms, common gateway interface (CGI), frames, and animated GIF images in the design of the WBT. After describing the design and implementation of the tutorial project, an evaluation of usage statistics and user feedback was conducted, as well as an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, and a comparison of this tutorial with other common types of training methods. The present article describes an innovative approach for CD-ROM training using advanced Web technologies such as dynamic HTML, which can simulate and demonstrate the interactive use of the CD-ROM, as well as the actual search process of a database.

Date

28. 1.2006 19:21:22

0.071903065 = product of:
  0.14380613 = sum of:
    0.14380613 = sum of:
      0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1025501 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.36599535 = 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)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
      0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041256037 = score(doc=2643,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050750602 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = 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)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

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.

0.06806899 = product of:
  0.13613798 = sum of:
    0.13613798 = product of:
      0.27227595 = sum of:
        0.27227595 = weight(_text_:22 in 219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27227595 = score(doc=219,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 219, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.06806899 = product of:
  0.13613798 = sum of:
    0.13613798 = product of:
      0.27227595 = sum of:
        0.27227595 = weight(_text_:22 in 1386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27227595 = score(doc=1386,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 1386, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=1386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.06806899 = product of:
  0.13613798 = sum of:
    0.13613798 = product of:
      0.27227595 = sum of:
        0.27227595 = weight(_text_:22 in 2102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27227595 = score(doc=2102,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 2102, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=2102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

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.