Search (756 results, page 1 of 38)

0.19651997 = product of:
  0.26202664 = sum of:
    0.06265728 = product of:
      0.18797183 = sum of:
        0.18797183 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18797183 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40135044 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
    0.18797183 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18797183 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40135044 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011397525 = score(doc=1000,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Content

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

Imprint

Wien / Library and Information Studies : Universität

0.15037745 = product of:
  0.3007549 = sum of:
    0.075188726 = product of:
      0.22556618 = sum of:
        0.22556618 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22556618 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40135044 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
    0.22556618 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22556618 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40135044 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.043697335 = product of:
  0.08739467 = sum of:
    0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012894828 = score(doc=183,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
    0.07449984 = sum of:
      0.04884408 = weight(_text_:services in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04884408 = score(doc=183,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.2810308 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.025655756 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025655756 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 73(2021) no.2, S.322-341

0.039358698 = product of:
  0.078717396 = sum of:
    0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011397525 = score(doc=5617,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5617, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5617)
    0.06731987 = sum of:
      0.035250176 = weight(_text_:services in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035250176 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 5617, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5617)
      0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032069694 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5617, 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=5617)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In a digital library, book search is one of the most important information services. However, with the rapid development of network technologies such as cloud computing, the server-side of a digital library is becoming more and more untrusted; thus, how to prevent the disclosure of users' book query privacy is causing people's increasingly extensive concern. In this article, we propose to construct a group of plausible fake queries for each user book query to cover up the sensitive subjects behind users' queries. First, we propose a basic framework for the privacy protection in book search, which requires no change to the book search algorithm running on the server-side, and no compromise to the accuracy of book search. Second, we present a privacy protection model for book search to formulate the constraints that ideal fake queries should satisfy, that is, (i) the feature similarity, which measures the confusion effect of fake queries on users' queries, and (ii) the privacy exposure, which measures the cover-up effect of fake queries on users' sensitive subjects. Third, we discuss the algorithm implementation for the privacy model. Finally, the effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated by theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation.

Date

6. 1.2020 17:22:25

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.2, S.183-195

0.037689567 = product of:
  0.07537913 = sum of:
    0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008059267 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.06731987 = sum of:
      0.035250176 = weight(_text_:services in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035250176 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032069694 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.03405592 = product of:
  0.06811184 = sum of:
    0.03604214 = weight(_text_:information in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03604214 = score(doc=1085,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.43369597 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
    0.032069694 = product of:
      0.06413939 = sum of:
        0.06413939 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06413939 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-1-3/what-is-information-an-information-veteran-looks-back-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-1?page=1.

Date

18. 8.2022 19:22:57

Theme

Information

0.027055766 = product of:
  0.054111533 = sum of:
    0.03486972 = weight(_text_:information in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03486972 = score(doc=915,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.41958824 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
    0.019241815 = product of:
      0.03848363 = sum of:
        0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03848363 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Experimentation is the process of trying something out to discover what happens. It is a widespread information practice, yet often bypassed in information-behavior research. This article argues that experimentation complements prior knowledge, documents, and people as an important fourth class of information sources. Relative to the other classes, the distinguishing characteristics of experimentation are that it is a personal-as opposed to interpersonal-source and that it provides "backtalk." When the information seeker tries something out and then attends to the resulting situation, it is as though the materials of the situation talk back: They provide the information seeker with a situated and direct experience of the consequences of the tried-out options. In this way, experimentation involves obtaining information by creating it. It also involves turning material and behavioral processes into information interactions. Thereby, information seeking by experimentation is important to practical information literacy and extends information-behavior research with new insights on the interrelations between creating and seeking information.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:29

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.383-387

0.026038494 = product of:
  0.052076988 = sum of:
    0.03604214 = weight(_text_:information in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03604214 = score(doc=5839,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.43369597 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose In The Invisible Substrate of Information Science, a landmark article about the discipline of information science, Marcia J. Bates wrote that ".we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives" (1999a, p. 1048). To sharpen our understanding of information science and to elaborate Bates' idea, the work at hand answers the question: Just what does the red thread of information entail? Design/methodology/approach Through a close reading of Bates' oeuvre and by applying concepts from the reference literature of information science, nine composite entities that qualify as the red thread of information are identified, elaborated, and related to existing concepts in the information science literature. In the spirit of a scientist-poet (White, 1999), several playful metaphors related to the color red are employed. Findings Bates' red thread of information entails: terms, genres, literatures, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, information institutions, and information policy. This same constellation of phenomena can be found in resonant visions of information science, namely, domain analysis (Hjørland, 2002), ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999), and social epistemology (Shera, 1968). Research limitations/implications With the vital vermilion filament in clear view, newcomers can more easily engage the material, conceptual, and social machinery of information science, and specialists are reminded of what constitutes information science as a whole. Future researchers and scientist-poets may wish to supplement the nine composite entities with additional, emergent information phenomena. Originality/value Though the explication of information science that follows is relatively orthodox and time-bound, the paper offers an imaginative, accessible, yet technically precise way of understanding the field.

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

Theme

Information

0.025658648 = product of:
  0.051317297 = sum of:
    0.03207548 = weight(_text_:information in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207548 = score(doc=919,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.38596505 = fieldWeight in 919, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=919)
    0.019241815 = product of:
      0.03848363 = sum of:
        0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03848363 = score(doc=919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 919, 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=919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Despite the prominence of the concept of the information ecosystem (hereafter IE) in information literacy documents and literature, it is under-theorized. This article proposes a general definition of IE for information literacy. After reviewing the current use of the IE concept in the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy and other information literacy sources, existing definitions of IE and similar concepts (e.g., "evidence ecosystems") will be examined from other fields. These will form the basis of the definition of IE proposed in the article for the field of information literacy: "all structures, entities, and agents related to the flow of semantic information relevant to a research domain, as well as the information itself."

Date

22. 3.2023 11:52:50

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.434-443

0.025582187 = product of:
  0.051164374 = sum of:
    0.03512953 = weight(_text_:information in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03512953 = score(doc=950,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.42271453 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

Theme

Information

0.02463203 = product of:
  0.04926406 = sum of:
    0.03322921 = weight(_text_:information in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03322921 = score(doc=921,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.39984792 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Surveillance, as a concept and social practice, is inextricably linked to information. It is, at its core, about information extraction and analysis conducted for some regulatory purpose. Yet, information science research only sporadically leverages surveillance studies scholarship, and we see a lack of sustained and focused attention to surveillance as an object of research within the domains of information behavior and social informatics. Surveillance, as a range of contextual and culturally based social practices defined by their connections to information seeking and use, should be framed as information practice-as that term is used within information behavior scholarship. Similarly, manifestations of surveillance in society are frequently perfect examples of information and communications technologies situated within everyday social and organizational structures-the very focus of social informatics research. The technological infrastructures and material artifacts of surveillance practice-surveillance technologies-can also be viewed as information tools. Framing surveillance as information practice and conceptualizing surveillance technologies as socially and contextually situated information tools can provide space for new avenues of research within the information sciences, especially within information disciplines that focus their attention on the social aspects of information and information technologies in society.

Date

22. 3.2023 11:57:47

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.444-460

0.024419248 = product of:
  0.048838496 = sum of:
    0.03121341 = weight(_text_:information in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03121341 = score(doc=245,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.37559175 = fieldWeight in 245, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=245)
    0.017625088 = product of:
      0.035250176 = sum of:
        0.035250176 = weight(_text_:services in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035250176 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While there have been a growing number of studies on makerspaces in different disciplines, little is known about how young people interact with information in makerspaces. This study aimed to unpack how young people (middle and high schoolers) sought, used, and shared information in voluntary free-choice library makerspace activities. Qualitative methods, including individual interviews, observations, photovoice, and focus groups, were used to elicit 21 participants' experiences at two library makerspaces. The findings showed that young people engaged in dynamic practices of information seeking, use, and sharing, and revealed how the historical, sociocultural, material, and technological contexts embedded in makerspace activities shaped these information practices. Information practices of tinkering, sensing, and imagining in makerspaces were highlighted. Various criteria that young people used in evaluating human sources and online information were identified as well. The study also demonstrated the communicative and collaborative aspects of young people's information practices through information sharing. The findings extended Savolainen's everyday information practices model and addressed the gap in the current literature on young people's information behavior and information practices. Understanding how young people interact with information in makerspaces can help makerspace facilitators and information professionals better support youth services and facilitate makerspace activities.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.6, S.744-758

0.024094114 = product of:
  0.04818823 = sum of:
    0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 5723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016118534 = score(doc=5723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5723)
    0.032069694 = product of:
      0.06413939 = sum of:
        0.06413939 = weight(_text_:22 in 5723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06413939 = score(doc=5723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

17. 1.2020 22:15:11

Theme

Information

0.02332385 = product of:
  0.0466477 = sum of:
    0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011397525 = score(doc=5982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5982)
    0.035250176 = product of:
      0.07050035 = sum of:
        0.07050035 = weight(_text_:services in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07050035 = score(doc=5982,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.405633 = fieldWeight in 5982, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5982)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As the humanities develop in the realm of increasingly more pronounced digital scholarship, it is important to provide quality subject access to a vast range of heterogeneous information objects in digital services. The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of affairs of the use of subject index terms in humanities journal articles with particular reference to the well-established subject access needs of humanities researchers, with the purpose of identifying which improvements are needed in this context. Design/methodology/approach The comparison of subject metadata on a sample of 649 peer-reviewed journal articles from across the humanities is conducted in a university repository, against Scopus, the former reflecting local and national policies and the latter being the most comprehensive international abstract and citation database of research output. Findings The study shows that established bibliographic objectives to ensure subject access for humanities journal articles are not supported in either the world's largest commercial abstract and citation database Scopus or the local repository of a public university in Sweden. The indexing policies in the two services do not seem to address the needs of humanities scholars for highly granular subject index terms with appropriate facets; no controlled vocabularies for any humanities discipline are used whatsoever. Originality/value In all, not much has changed since 1990s when indexing for the humanities was shown to lag behind the sciences. The community of researchers and information professionals, today working together on digital humanities projects, as well as interdisciplinary research teams, should demand that their subject access needs be fulfilled, especially in commercial services like Scopus and discovery services.

0.023297938 = product of:
  0.046595875 = sum of:
    0.02735406 = weight(_text_:information in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02735406 = score(doc=888,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
    0.019241815 = product of:
      0.03848363 = sum of:
        0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03848363 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 888, 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=888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Scholarly publications are often regarded as "information" by default. They are collected, organized, preserved, and made accessible as knowledge records. However, the instances of article retraction, misconduct and malpractices of researchers and the replication crisis have raised concerns about the informativeness and evidential qualities of information. Among many factors, knowledge production has moved away from "normal science" under the systemic influences of platformization involving the datafication and commodification of scholarly articles, research profiles and research activities. This article aims to understand the platformization of information by examining how research practices and knowledge production are steered by market and platform mechanisms in four ways: (a) ownership of information; (b) metrics for sale; (c) relevance by metrics, and (d) market-based competition. In conclusion, the article argues that information is platformized when platforms hold the dominating power in determining what kinds of information can be disseminated and rewarded and when informativeness is decoupled from the normative agreement or consensus co-constructed and co-determined in an open and public discourse.

Date

22. 1.2023 19:01:47

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.273-282

0.023152092 = product of:
  0.046304185 = sum of:
    0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 1070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009671121 = score(doc=1070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1070)
    0.036633063 = product of:
      0.073266126 = sum of:
        0.073266126 = weight(_text_:services in 1070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073266126 = score(doc=1070,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.42154622 = fieldWeight in 1070, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As scholars increasingly undertake large-scale analysis of visual materials, advanced computational tools show promise for informing that process. One technique in the toolbox is image recognition, made readily accessible via Google Vision AI, Microsoft Azure Computer Vision, and Amazon's Rekognition service. However, concerns about such issues as bias factors and low reliability have led to warnings against research employing it. A systematic study of cross-service label agreement concretized such issues: using eight datasets, spanning professionally produced and user-generated images, the work showed that image-recognition services disagree on the most suitable labels for images. Beyond supporting caveats expressed in prior literature, the report articulates two mitigation strategies, both involving the use of multiple image-recognition services: Highly explorative research could include all the labels, accepting noisier but less restrictive analysis output. Alternatively, scholars may employ word-embedding-based approaches to identify concepts that are similar enough for their purposes, then focus on those labels filtered in.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.11, S.1307-1324

0.022243306 = product of:
  0.044486612 = sum of:
    0.013959061 = weight(_text_:information in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013959061 = score(doc=100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
    0.03052755 = product of:
      0.0610551 = sum of:
        0.0610551 = weight(_text_:services in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0610551 = score(doc=100,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

When developing university-based research data curation services, libraries face critical decisions around organization and sustainability that can affect dataset producers' satisfaction with these services. We present a study, involving interviews (n = 43) and ethnographic observation, of how two libraries partnered with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to curate a significant astronomy dataset. Each library took different decisions: one library assigned activities to a unit specializing in digital curation, while the other distributed activities across its existing units. Neither approach proved a silver bullet. While library staff members felt the outcomes largely met their expectations, SDSS leaders expressed mixed opinions. We identify three factors that contributed to these differences in perspective: differing strategic motivations for undertaking this Data Transfer Process, SDSS leaders' misperceptions about libraries, and organizational mismatches. These factors contributed to four differences in perspective between SDSS leaders and library staff: provenance as technical information or as information about social context, dataset as a live research object or as a static object to be preserved, systems and services tailored to the dataset or easily adaptable to other datasets, and obstacles as setbacks or as opportunities. Only those differences that emerged when SDSS collaboration members and library staff communicated frequently were resolved.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.2, S.239-252

0.021976486 = product of:
  0.04395297 = sum of:
    0.027918123 = weight(_text_:information in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027918123 = score(doc=996,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 996, 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=996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis provided an opportunity for information professionals to rethink the role of information in individuals' decision making such as vaccine uptake. Unlike previous studies, which often considered information as a single factor among others, this study examined the impact of the quantity and trustworthiness of information on people's adoption of information for vaccination decisions based on the information adoption model. We analyzed COVID-19 Preventive Behavior Survey data collected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from Facebook users (N = 82,213) in 15 countries between October 2020 and March 2021. The results of logistic regression analyses indicate that reasonable quantity and trustworthiness of information were positively related to COVID-19 vaccination intent. But excessive and less than the desired amount of information was more likely to have negative impacts on vaccination intent. The degrees of trust in the mediums and in the sources were associated with the level of vaccine acceptance. But the effects of trustworthiness accorded to information sources showed variations across sources and mediums. Implications for information professionals and suggestions for policies are discussed.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:20:47

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.846-865

0.021874296 = product of:
  0.04374859 = sum of:
    0.030920712 = weight(_text_:information in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030920712 = score(doc=181,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.37206972 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
    0.012827878 = product of:
      0.025655756 = sum of:
        0.025655756 = weight(_text_:22 in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025655756 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. A survey study is used to approach what their information needs are, how these needs change during an engineering design project and how their information-seeking behaviours have been influenced by the newly developed information technologies (ITs). Through an in-depth analysis of the survey results, the key functions have been identified for the next-generation management systems. Design/methodology/approach The paper first proposed four hypotheses on the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of young engineers. Then, a survey study was undertaken to understand their information usage in terms of the information needs and information-seeking behaviours during a complete engineering design process. Through analysing the survey results, several findings were obtained and on this basis, further comparisons were made to discuss and evaluate the hypotheses. Findings The paper has revealed that the engineering designers' information needs will evolve throughout the engineering design project; thus, they should be assisted at several different levels. Although they intend to search information and knowledge on know-what and know-how, what they really require is the know-why knowledge in order to help them complete design tasks. Also, the paper has shown how the newly developed ITs and web-based applications have influenced the engineers' information-seeking practices. Research limitations/implications The research subjects chosen in this study are engineering students in universities who, although not as experienced as engineers in companies, do go through a complete design process with the tasks similar to industrial scenarios. In addition, the focus of this study is to understand the information-seeking behaviours of a new generation of design engineers, so that the development of next-generation information and knowledge management systems can be well informed. In this sense, the results obtained do reveal some new knowledge about the information-seeking behaviours during a general design process. Practical implications This paper first identifies the information needs and information-seeking behaviours of the new generation of engineering designers. On this basis, the varied ways to meet these needs and behaviours are discussed and elaborated. This intends to provide the key characteristics for the development of the next-generation knowledge management system for engineering design projects. Originality/value This paper proposes a novel means of exploring the future engineers' information needs and information-seeking behaviours in a collaborative working environment. It also characterises the key features and functions for the next generation of knowledge management systems for engineering design.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.853-868

0.021793898 = product of:
  0.043587796 = sum of:
    0.01367703 = weight(_text_:information in 5917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01367703 = score(doc=5917,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5917, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5917)
    0.029910767 = product of:
      0.059821535 = sum of:
        0.059821535 = weight(_text_:services in 5917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059821535 = score(doc=5917,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.344191 = fieldWeight in 5917, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The star-rating mechanism of customer reviews is used universally by the online population to compare and select merchants, movies, products, and services. The consensus opinion from aggregation of star ratings is used as a proxy for item quality. Online reviews are noisy and effective aggregation of star ratings to accurately reflect the "true quality" of products and services is challenging. The mean-rating aggregation model is widely used and other aggregation models are also proposed. These existing aggregation models rely on a large number of reviews to tolerate noise. However, many products rarely have reviews. We propose probabilistic aggregation models for review ratings based on the Dirichlet distribution to combat data sparsity in reviews. We further propose to exploit the "helpfulness" social information and time to filter noisy reviews and effectively aggregate ratings to compute the consensus opinion. Our experiments on an Amazon data set show that our probabilistic aggregation models based on "helpfulness" achieve better performance than the statistical and heuristic baseline approaches.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.784-799