Search (161 results, page 1 of 9)

0.11059477 = product of:
  0.27648693 = sum of:
    0.06912173 = product of:
      0.2073652 = sum of:
        0.2073652 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2073652 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3689654 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
    0.2073652 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2073652 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3689654 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

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

0.09216232 = product of:
  0.2304058 = sum of:
    0.05760145 = product of:
      0.17280434 = sum of:
        0.17280434 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17280434 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3689654 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
    0.17280434 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17280434 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3689654 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.08176422 = product of:
  0.20441055 = sum of:
    0.13772772 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13772772 = score(doc=5913,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.64775085 = fieldWeight in 5913, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5913)
    0.06668283 = product of:
      0.13336566 = sum of:
        0.13336566 = weight(_text_:innovations in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13336566 = score(doc=5913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.45071742 = fieldWeight in 5913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Over the past decade, megajournals have expanded in popularity and established a legitimate niche in academic publishing. Leveraging advantages of digital publishing, megajournals are characterized by large publication volume, broad interdisciplinary scope, and peer-review filters that select primarily for scientific soundness as opposed to novelty or originality. These publishing innovations are complementary and competitive vis-à-vis traditional journals. We analyze how megajournals (PLOS One, Scientific Reports) are represented in different fields relative to prominent generalist journals (Nature, PNAS, Science) and "quasi-megajournals" (Nature Communications, PeerJ). Our results show that both megajournals and prominent traditional journals have distinctive niches, despite the similar interdisciplinary scopes of such journals. These niches-defined by publishing volume and disciplinary diversity-are dynamic and varied over the relatively brief histories of the analyzed megajournals. Although the life sciences are the predominant contributor to megajournals, there is variation in the disciplinary composition of different megajournals. The growth trajectories and disciplinary composition of generalist journals-including megajournals-reflect changing knowledge dissemination and reward structures in science.

0.07119316 = product of:
  0.1779829 = sum of:
    0.09939642 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09939642 = score(doc=1206,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
    0.07858648 = product of:
      0.15717296 = sum of:
        0.15717296 = weight(_text_:innovations in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15717296 = score(doc=1206,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy-or lack thereof-affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

0.050038762 = product of:
  0.1250969 = sum of:
    0.040724877 = weight(_text_:technological in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040724877 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.17611535 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.08437202 = sum of:
      0.06668283 = weight(_text_:innovations in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06668283 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043520276 = queryNorm
          0.22535871 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.017689189 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017689189 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043520276 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.04518223 = product of:
  0.11295558 = sum of:
    0.05738655 = weight(_text_:publishing in 670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05738655 = score(doc=670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=670)
    0.055569027 = product of:
      0.11113805 = sum of:
        0.11113805 = weight(_text_:innovations in 670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11113805 = score(doc=670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.37559783 = fieldWeight in 670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Changes in modes of publication over recent decades and moves to publish material freely and openly have resulted in increased amounts of research and scholarly outputs being available online. These include teaching and other material but consist mostly of research publications. There have been significant UK and European initiatives as part of the Open Agenda that facilitate and indeed mandate the move to open whether that is for educational materials, research output and data, or the mechanisms for ensuring the quality of these materials. A significant issue is that although making research outputs freely available is praiseworthy, without the data on which that research is based, reproducibility and so verification, which are fundamental principles of scholarly methodology, are not possible. When discrete datasets are linked openly and freely, are able to interact by using common standards, they become more powerful with extended possibilities for research questions that cross disciplinary divides and knowledge domains. There are always objections and resistance to new innovations, and open publication is no exception; published research, nevertheless, indicates that publishing material openly is becoming considered to be "good research practice" and that the positives of "new collaborations and higher citation" outweigh any perceived negative effects.

0.040391423 = product of:
  0.10097855 = sum of:
    0.08034117 = weight(_text_:publishing in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034117 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.020637387 = product of:
      0.041274775 = sum of:
        0.041274775 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041274775 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

Date

6. 4.2022 19:22:26

0.039655577 = product of:
  0.099138945 = sum of:
    0.081449755 = weight(_text_:technological in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081449755 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.3522307 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
    0.017689189 = product of:
      0.035378378 = sum of:
        0.035378378 = weight(_text_:22 in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035378378 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 184, 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=184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03835913 = product of:
  0.09589783 = sum of:
    0.08115684 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08115684 = score(doc=1055,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 1055, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1055)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Journal lists are instruments to categorize, compare, and assess research and scholarly publications. Our study investigates the remarkable proliferation of such journal lists in China, analyses their underlying values, quality criteria and ranking principles, and specifies how concerns specific to the Chinese research policy and publishing system inform these lists. Discouraged lists of "bad journals" reflect concerns over inferior research publications, but also the involved drain on public resources. Endorsed lists of "good journals" are based on criteria valued in research policy, reflecting the distinctive administrative logic of state-led Chinese research and publishing policy, ascribing worth to scientific journals for its specific national and institutional needs. In this regard, the criteria used for journal list construction are contextual and reflect the challenges of public resource allocation in a market-led publication system. Chinese journal lists therefore reflect research policy changes, such as a shift away from output-dominated research evaluation, the specific concerns about research misconduct, and balancing national research needs against international standards, resulting in distinctly Chinese quality criteria. However, contrasting concerns and inaccuracies lead to contradictions in the "qualify" and "disqualify" binary logic and demonstrate inherent tensions and limitations in journal lists as policy tools.

Date

22. 9.2023 16:39:23

0.03462122 = product of:
  0.08655305 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.017689189 = product of:
      0.035378378 = sum of:
        0.035378378 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035378378 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.033046316 = product of:
  0.082615785 = sum of:
    0.0678748 = weight(_text_:technological in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0678748 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.033046316 = product of:
  0.082615785 = sum of:
    0.0678748 = weight(_text_:technological in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0678748 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12

0.033046316 = product of:
  0.082615785 = sum of:
    0.0678748 = weight(_text_:technological in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0678748 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper reconsiders the outpacing argument, the belief that changes in law and other means of regulation cannot keep pace with recent changes in technology. We focus on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in and of themselves as well as applied in computer science, telecommunications, health, finance, and other applications, but our argument applies also in rapidly developing technological fields such as environmental science, materials science, and genetic engineering. First, we discuss why the outpacing argument is so closely associated with information and computing technologies. We then outline 12 arguments that support the outpacing argument, by pointing to some particular weaknesses of policy making, using the United States as the primary example. Then arguing in the opposite direction, we present 4 brief and 3 more extended criticisms of the outpacing thesis. The paper's final section responds to calls within the technical community for greater engagement of policy and ethical concerns and reviews the paper's major arguments. While the paper focuses on ICTs and policy making in the United States, our critique of the outpacing argument and our exploration of its complex character are of utility to actors in other political contexts and in other technical fields.

Date

22. 7.2023 13:28:28

0.033046316 = product of:
  0.082615785 = sum of:
    0.0678748 = weight(_text_:technological in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0678748 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 1126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1126)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 1126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=1126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1126, 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=1126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Domains represent concepts which belong to specific parts of the world. The particularized meaning of words linguistically encoding such domain concepts are provided by domain specific resources. The explicit meaning of such words are increasingly captured computationally using domain-specific ontologies, which, even for the same reference domain, are most often than not semantically incompatible. As information systems that rely on domain ontologies expand, there is a growing need to not only design domain ontologies and domain ontology-grounded Knowl­edge Graphs (KGs) but also to align them to general standards and conventions for interoperability. This often presents an insurmountable challenge to domain experts who have to additionally learn the construction of domain ontologies and KGs. Until now, several research methodologies have been proposed by different research groups using different technical approaches and based on scenarios of different domains of application. However, no methodology has been proposed which not only facilitates designing conceptually well-founded ontologies, but is also, equally, grounded in the general pedagogical principles of knowl­edge organization and, thereby, flexible enough to teach, and reproduce vis-à-vis domain experts. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a general, pedagogically flexible semantic knowl­edge modelling methodology. We exemplify the methodology by examples and illustrations from a professional-level digital healthcare course, and conclude with an evaluation grounded in technological parameters as well as user experience design principles.

Date

20.11.2023 17:19:22

0.029864788 = product of:
  0.14932394 = sum of:
    0.14932394 = sum of:
      0.12573835 = weight(_text_:innovations in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12573835 = score(doc=1003,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043520276 = queryNorm
          0.42494047 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.023585586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023585586 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043520276 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Increasingly we live through our personal screens; we work, play, socialize, and learn digitally. The shift to remote everything during the pandemic was another step in a decades-long march toward the digitization of everyday life made possible by innovations in media, information, and communication technology. In The Digital Environment, Pablo Boczkowski and Eugenia Mitchelstein offer a new way to understand the role of the digital in our daily lives, calling on us to turn our attention from our discrete devices and apps to the array of artifacts and practices that make up the digital environment that envelops every aspect of our social experience. Boczkowski and Mitchelstein explore a series of issues raised by the digital takeover of everyday life, drawing on interviews with a variety of experts. They show how existing inequities of gender, race, ethnicity, education, and class are baked into the design and deployment of technology, and describe emancipatory practices that counter this--including the use of Twitter as a platform for activism through such hashtags as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo. They discuss the digitization of parenting, schooling, and dating--noting, among other things, that today we can both begin and end relationships online. They describe how digital media shape our consumption of sports, entertainment, and news, and consider the dynamics of political campaigns, disinformation, and social activism. Finally, they report on developments in three areas that will be key to our digital future: data science, virtual reality, and space exploration.

Content

1. Three Environments, One Life -- Part I: Foundations -- 2. Mediatization -- 3. Algorithms -- 4. Race and Ethnicity -- 5. Gender -- Part II: Institutions -- 6. Parenting -- 7. Schooling -- 8. Working -- 9. Dating -- Part III: Leisure -- 10. Sports -- 11. Televised Entertainment -- 12. News -- Part IV: Politics -- 13. Misinformation and Disinformation -- 14. Electoral Campaigns -- 15. Activism -- Part V: Innovations -- 16. Data Science -- 17. Virtual Reality -- 18. Space Exploration -- 19. Bricks and Cracks in the Digital Environment

Date

22. 6.2023 18:25:18

0.028851017 = product of:
  0.07212754 = sum of:
    0.05738655 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05738655 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 5757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5757)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5757, 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=5757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Cultural heritage institutions are publishing their digital collections over the web as LOD. This is is a new step in the patrimonialization and curatorial processes developed by such institutions. Many of these collections are thematically superimposed and complementary. Frequently, objects in these collections present culturally relevant relationships, such as a book about a painting, or a draft or sketch of a famous painting, etc. LOD technology enables such heritage records to be interlinked, achieving interoperability and adding value to digital collections, thus empowering heritage institutions. An aim of this research is characterizing such culturally relevant relationships and organizing them in a vocabulary. Use cases or examples of relationships between objects suggested by curators or mentioned in literature and in the conceptual models as FRBR/LRM, CIDOC CRM and RiC-CM, were collected and used as examples or inspiration of cultural relevant relationships. Relationships identified are collated and compared for identifying those with the same or similar meaning, synthesized and normalized. A set of thirty-three culturally relevant relationships are identified and formalized as a LOD property vocabulary to be used by digital curators to interlink digital collections. The results presented are provisional and a starting point to be discussed, tested, and enhanced.

Date

4. 3.2020 14:22:41

0.028113553 = product of:
  0.14056776 = sum of:
    0.14056776 = weight(_text_:publishing in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14056776 = score(doc=9,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.66110796 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The emergence of open access (OA) publishing has altered incentives and opportunities for academic stakeholders and publishers. These changes have yielded a variety of new economic and academic niches, including journals with questionable peer-review systems and business models, commonly dubbed "predatory publishing." Empirical analysis of Cabell's Journal Blacklist reveals substantial diversity in types and degrees of predatory publishing. While some blacklisted publishers produce journals with many severe violations of academic norms, "gray" journals and publishers occupy borderline or ambiguous niches between predation and legitimacy. Predation in academic publishing is not a simple binary phenomenon and should instead be perceived as a spectrum with varying types and degrees of illegitimacy. Conceptions of predation are based on overlapping evaluations of academic and economic legitimacy. High institutional status benefits publishers by reducing conflicts between-if not aligning-professional and market institutional logics, which are more likely to conflict and create illegitimacy concerns in downmarket niches. High rejection rates imbue high-status journals with value and pricing power, while low-status OA journals face "predatory" incentives to optimize revenue via low selectivity. Status influences the social acceptability of profit-seeking in academic publishing, rendering lower-status publishers vulnerable to being perceived and stigmatized as illegitimate.

0.027545545 = product of:
  0.13772772 = sum of:
    0.13772772 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13772772 = score(doc=1161,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.64775085 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Linked Open Data (LOD) are a set of principles for publishing structured, connected data available for reuse under an open license. The objective of this paper is to analyze the publishing of bibliographic data such as LOD, having as a product the elaboration of theoretical-methodological recommendations for the publication of these data, in an approach based on the ten best practices for publishing LOD, from the World Wide Web Consortium. The starting point was the conduction of a Systematic Review of Literature, where initiatives to publish bibliographic data such as LOD were identified. An empirical study of these institutions was also conducted. As a result, theoretical-methodological recommendations were obtained for the process of publishing bibliographic data such as LOD.

0.02714992 = product of:
  0.1357496 = sum of:
    0.1357496 = weight(_text_:technological in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1357496 = score(doc=5732,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.58705115 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent technological developments have increased the use of machine learning to solve many problems, including many in information retrieval. Multimedia information retrieval as a problem represents a significant challenge to machine learning as a technological solution, but some problems can still be addressed by using appropriate AI techniques. We review the technological developments and provide a perspective on the use of machine learning in conjunction with knowledge organization to address multimedia IR needs. The semantic gap in multimedia IR remains a significant problem in the field, and solutions to them are many years off. However, new technological developments allow the use of knowledge organization and machine learning in multimedia search systems and services. Specifically, we argue that, the improvement of detection of some classes of lowlevel features in images music and video can be used in conjunction with knowledge organization to tag or label multimedia content for better retrieval performance. We provide an overview of the use of knowledge organization schemes in machine learning and make recommendations to information professionals on the use of this technology with knowledge organization techniques to solve multimedia IR problems. We introduce a five-step process model that extracts features from multimedia objects (Step 1) from both knowledge organization (Step 1a) and machine learning (Step 1b), merging them together (Step 2) to create an index of those multimedia objects (Step 3). We also overview further steps in creating an application to utilize the multimedia objects (Step 4) and maintaining and updating the database of features on those objects (Step 5).

0.02714992 = product of:
  0.1357496 = sum of:
    0.1357496 = weight(_text_:technological in 5935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1357496 = score(doc=5935,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.58705115 = fieldWeight in 5935, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5935)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article explores technological sovereignty as a way to respond to anxieties of control in digital urban contexts, and argues that this may promise a more meaningful social license to operate smart cities. First, we present an overview of smart city developments with a critical focus on corporatization and platform urbanism. We critique Alphabet's Sidewalk Labs development in Toronto, which faces public backlash from the #BlockSidewalk campaign in response to concerns over not just privacy, but also lack of community consultation, the prospect of the city losing its civic ability to self-govern, and its repossession of public land and infrastructure. Second, we explore what a more responsible smart city could look like, underpinned by technological sovereignty, which is a way to use technologies to promote individual and collective autonomy and empowerment via ownership, control, and self-governance of data and technologies. To this end, we juxtapose the Sidewalk Labs development in Toronto with the Barcelona Digital City plan. We illustrate the merits (and limits) of technological sovereignty moving toward a fairer and more equitable digital society.