-
Allard, S.; Levine, K.J.; Tenopir, C.: Design engineers and technical professionals at work : observing information usage in the workplace (2009)
0.01
0.010217575 = product of:
0.06130545 = sum of:
0.06130545 = sum of:
0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034859132 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026446318 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2735, 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=2735)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- This exploratory study examines how design engineers and technical professionals (hereafter referred to as engineers) in innovative high-tech firms in the United States and India use information in their daily work activities including research, development, and management. The researchers used naturalistic observation to conduct a series of daylong workplace observations with 103 engineers engaged in product design and testing in four U.S.- and two India-based firms. A key finding is that engineers spend about one fourth of their day engaged in some type of information event, which was somewhat lower than the percentage identified in previous research. The explanation may be rooted in the significant change in the information environment and corporate expectations in the last 15 years, which is the time of the original study. Searching technology has improved, making searching less time consuming, and engineers are choosing the Internet as a primary source even though information may not be as focused, as timely, or as authoritative. The study extends our understanding of the engineering workplace, and the information environment in the workplace, and provides information useful for improving methods for accessing and using information, which could ultimately lead to better job performance, facilitate innovation, and encourage economic growth.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:37
-
Tenopir, C.: Searching by controlled vocabulary or free text (1987)
0.01
0.007116368 = product of:
0.04269821 = sum of:
0.04269821 = product of:
0.08539642 = sum of:
0.08539642 = weight(_text_:29 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08539642 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library journal. 112(1987) Nov.15, S.58-29
-
Tenopir, C.: Information metrics and user studies (2003)
0.01
0.007044076 = product of:
0.042264454 = sum of:
0.042264454 = product of:
0.08452891 = sum of:
0.08452891 = weight(_text_:methods in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08452891 = score(doc=686,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.5385604 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Three questions - what can be studied; how can studies be done; and what can be measured - drive research methods and help to identify information metrics for user studies. User studies can investigate user needs, search strategies, or preferences. Observing and asking, the two main methods for conducting user studies, yield quantitative and qualitative data through studying patterns of behavior and insights into motivation. ciber (Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, City University, London) is in a good position to continue supporting information user behavior studies that use a variety of methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative data and help establish consistent metrics.
-
Wilson, C.S.; Tenopir, C.: Local citation analysis, publishing and reading patterns : using multiple methods to evaluate faculty use of an academic library's research collection (2008)
0.01
0.0050314823 = product of:
0.030188894 = sum of:
0.030188894 = product of:
0.060377788 = sum of:
0.060377788 = weight(_text_:methods in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060377788 = score(doc=1960,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.384686 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.
-
Tenopir, C.; Ennis, L.: ¬The digital reference work of academic libraries (1998)
0.00
0.0043634204 = product of:
0.02618052 = sum of:
0.02618052 = product of:
0.05236104 = sum of:
0.05236104 = weight(_text_:22 in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05236104 = score(doc=5170,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Online. 22(1998) no.4, S.22-28
-
Tenopir, C.: Front end software proliferates (1996)
0.00
0.003558184 = product of:
0.021349104 = sum of:
0.021349104 = product of:
0.04269821 = sum of:
0.04269821 = weight(_text_:29 in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04269821 = score(doc=5133,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library journal. 121(1996) no.8, S.29-30
-
Tenopir, C.: Online databases : taking online interaction for granted (1997)
0.00
0.003558184 = product of:
0.021349104 = sum of:
0.021349104 = product of:
0.04269821 = sum of:
0.04269821 = weight(_text_:29 in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04269821 = score(doc=1675,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 7.1998 19:07:18
-
Tenopir, C.: Reference services from RLG (1995)
0.00
0.0035261759 = product of:
0.021157054 = sum of:
0.021157054 = product of:
0.04231411 = sum of:
0.04231411 = weight(_text_:22 in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04231411 = score(doc=2612,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2612, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2612)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 25.11.1995 19:22:01
-
Tenopir, C.: Integrating electronic reference (1995)
0.00
0.0035261759 = product of:
0.021157054 = sum of:
0.021157054 = product of:
0.04231411 = sum of:
0.04231411 = weight(_text_:22 in 2616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04231411 = score(doc=2616,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2616, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2616)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 25.11.1995 19:22:01
-
Tenopir, C.; Levine, K.; Allard, S.; Christian, L.; Volentine, R.; Boehm, R.; Nichols, F.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Herman, E.; Watkinson, A.: Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age : results of an international questionnaire (2016)
0.00
0.0034859132 = product of:
0.020915478 = sum of:
0.020915478 = product of:
0.041830957 = sum of:
0.041830957 = weight(_text_:methods in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041830957 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.
-
Tenopir, C.: Moving to the information village (1996)
0.00
0.003113411 = product of:
0.018680464 = sum of:
0.018680464 = product of:
0.03736093 = sum of:
0.03736093 = weight(_text_:29 in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03736093 = score(doc=4944,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4944, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4944)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Library journal. 121(1996) no.4, S.29-30
-
Tenopir, C.; Neufang, R.: Electronic reference options : how they stack up in research libraries (1992)
0.00
0.0030854037 = product of:
0.018512422 = sum of:
0.018512422 = product of:
0.037024844 = sum of:
0.037024844 = weight(_text_:22 in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037024844 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2343, 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=2343)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Online. 16(1992) no.2, S.22-28
-
Huntington, P.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Tenopir, C.: Article decay in the digital environment : an analysis of usage of OhioLINK by date of publication, employing deep log methods (2006)
0.00
0.0029049278 = product of:
0.017429566 = sum of:
0.017429566 = product of:
0.034859132 = sum of:
0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034859132 = score(doc=214,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Sandusky, R.J.; Tenopir, C.: Finding and using journal-article components : impacts of disaggregation on teaching and research practice (2008)
0.00
0.0029049278 = product of:
0.017429566 = sum of:
0.017429566 = product of:
0.034859132 = sum of:
0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 1723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034859132 = score(doc=1723,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 1723, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1723)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- This article reports the results of a study into the use of discrete journal-article components, particularly tables and figures extracted from published scientific journal articles, and their application to teaching and research. Sixty participants were introduced to and asked to perform searches in a journal-article component prototype that presents individual tables and figures as the items returned in the search results set. Multiple methods, including questionnaires, observations, and structured diaries, were used to collect data. The results are analyzed in the context of previous studies on the use of scientific journal articles and in terms of research on scientists' use of specific journal-article components to find information, assess its relevance, read, interpret, and disaggregate the information found, and reaggregate components into new forms of information. Results indicate that scientists believe searching for journal-article components has value in terms of (a) higher precision result sets, (b) better match between the granularity of the prototype's index and the granularity of the information sought for particular tasks, and (c) fit between journal-article component searching and the established teaching and research practices of scientists.
-
Tenopir, C.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Y.; Simmons, B.; Pollard, R.: Academic users' interactions with ScienceDirect in search tasks : affective and cognitive behaviors (2008)
0.00
0.0029049278 = product of:
0.017429566 = sum of:
0.017429566 = product of:
0.034859132 = sum of:
0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034859132 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- This article presents part of phase 2 of a research project funded by the NSF-National Science Digital Library Project, which observed how academic users interact with the ScienceDirect information retrieval system for simulated class-related assignments. The ultimate goal of the project is twofold: (1) to find ways to improve science and engineering students' use of science e-journal systems; (2) to develop methods to measure user interaction behaviors. Process-tracing technique recorded participants' processes and interaction behaviors that are measurable; think-aloud protocol captured participants' affective and cognitive verbalizations; pre- and post-search questionnaires solicited demographic information, prior experience with the system, and comments. We explored possible relationships between affective feelings and cognitive behaviors. During search interactions both feelings and thoughts occurred frequently. Positive feelings were more common and were associated more often with thoughts about results. Negative feelings were associated more often with thoughts related to the system, search strategy, and task. Learning styles are also examined as a factor influencing behavior. Engineering graduate students with an assimilating learning style searched longer and paused less than those with a converging learning style. Further exploration of learning styles is suggested.
-
Douglass, K.; Allard, S.; Tenopir, C.; Wu, L.W.; Frame, M.: Managing scientific data as public assets : data sharing practices and policies among full-time government employees (2014)
0.00
0.0022238651 = product of:
0.01334319 = sum of:
0.01334319 = product of:
0.02668638 = sum of:
0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02668638 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03903913 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:13:06
