Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047041588 = product of:
  0.094083175 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 5221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=5221,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 5221, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5221)
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 5221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=5221,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 5221, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5221)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this issue Xie and Wolfram study the Wisconsin state digital library BadgerLink to determine the organizational factors that lead to different use requirements and the degree to which these are met, as well as impact on physical libraries. To this end, usage data from EBSCOhost and ProQuest logs for BadgerLink were analyzed, 313 Wisconsin libraries of all types were surveyed (76% response rate), and analyzed along with 81 responses to a voluntary web survey of end users. Heaviest users were K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. Heaviest use sites were the two largest state universities and the state's largest public library. Small libraries were infrequent users. Web survey respondents were mature working professionals. Sixty percent searched for specific information, but 46% reported browsing in subject areas. Libraries with dedicated Internet access reported more frequent usage than those with dial-up connection. Those who accessed from libraries reported more frequent use than those at work or at home. Libraries that trained end users reported more use, but the majority of the web survey respondents reported themselves as self-taught. Logs confirm reported subject interests. Three surrogates were requested for every full text document but full text availability is reported as the reason for use by 30% of users. Availability has led to the cancellation of subscriptions in many libraries that are important promoters of the service. A model will need to include interactions based upon the influence of each involved participant on the others. It will also need to include the extension of the activities of one participant to other participant organizations and the communication among these organizations.

0.017121824 = product of:
  0.068487294 = sum of:
    0.068487294 = weight(_text_:library in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068487294 = score(doc=750,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.51967657 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a survey of US library schools to investigate the adoption, impact, and role of networking concepts and resources, such as the Internet, in the library and information science curriculum. Findings indicate that, to a large degree, educators have kept up with recent trends and tools in networking in a variety of courses. There was overwhelming consensus on the importance of networked information resources and access tools but less agreement on their places in the library and information science curriculum

Source

Library trends. 42(1994) no.4, S.626-637

0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=2589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The emergence of general audience digital libraries (GADLs) defines a context that represents a hybrid of both "traditional" IR, using primarily bibliographic resources provided by database vendors, and "popular" IR, exemplified by public search systems available on the World Wide Web. Findings of a study investigating end-user searching and response to a GADL are reported. Data collected from a Web-based end-user survey and data logs of resource usage for a Web-based GADL were analyzed for user characteristics, patterns of access and use, and user feedback. Cross-tabulations using respondent demographics revealed several key differences in how the system was used and valued by users of different age groups. Older users valued the service more than younger users and engaged in different searching and viewing behaviors. The GADL more closely resembles traditional retrieval systems in terms of content and purpose of use, but is more similar to popular IR systems in terms of user behavior and accessibility. A model that defines the dual context of the GADL environment is derived from the data analysis and existing IR models in general and other specific contexts. The authors demonstrate the distinguishing characteristics of this IR context, and discuss implications for the development and evaluation of future GADLs to accommodate a variety of user needs and expectations.

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=1857,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on research examining the relationship of searcher performance and perception of performance, particulary for hypertext-based onformation retrieval systems for bibliographic data. Employs a prototype hypertext bibliographic retrieval system called HyperLynx. Evaluates its use by 83 subjects at the School of Library and Information Science and the Golda Meir Library at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Measures of system usgae indicate that there is no significant relationship between confidence and the number of record pages visited, although confident searchers searched for shorter time periods. The reality check measures shows that both novice and experienced searchers were over confident in their performance

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.1, S.22-29

0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 1849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=1849,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1849, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1849)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study compares the range of disciplines of citing journal articles to determine how closely related journals assigned to the same Web of Science research area are. The frequency distribution of disciplines by citing articles provides a signature for a cited journal that permits it to be compared with other journals using similarity comparison techniques. As an initial exploration, citing discipline data for 40 high-impact-factor journals assigned to the "information science and library science" category of the Web of Science were compared across 5 time periods. Similarity relationships were determined using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to compare the outcomes produced by the proposed citing discipline and established cocitation methods. The maps and clustering outcomes reveal that a number of journals in allied areas of the information science and library science category may not be very closely related to each other or may not be appropriately situated in the category studied. The citing discipline similarity data resulted in similar outcomes with the cocitation data but with some notable differences. Because the citing discipline method relies on a citing perspective different from cocitations, it may provide a complementary way to compare journal similarity that is less labor intensive than cocitation analysis.

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library and information science research. 18(1996) no.2, S.121-132

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 3170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=3170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3170)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of the works of Hope A. Olson by conducting an ego-centric informetric analysis of her published works. Publication and citation data were collected from Google Scholar and the Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Classic informetrics techniques were applied to the datasets including co-authorship analysis, citer analysis, citation and co-citation analysis and text-based analysis. Co-citation and text-based data were analyzed and visualized using VOSviewer and CiteSpace, respectively. The analysis of her citation identity reveals how Dr. Olson situates her own research within the knowledge landscape while the analysis of her citation image reveals how others have situated her work in relation to the authors with whom she has been co-cited. This reflection of Dr. Olson's research contributions reveals the influence of her scholarship not only on knowledge organization but other areas of library and information science and allied disciplines.

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Relationships between authors based on characteristics of published literature have been studied for decades. Author cocitation analysis using mapping techniques has been most frequently used to study how closely two authors are thought to be in intellectual space based on how members of the research community co-cite their works. Other approaches exist to study author relatedness based more directly on the text of their published works. In this study we present static and dynamic word-based approaches using vector space modeling, as well as a topic-based approach based on latent Dirichlet allocation for mapping author research relatedness. Vector space modeling is used to define an author space consisting of works by a given author. Outcomes for the two word-based approaches and a topic-based approach for 50 prolific authors in library and information science are compared with more traditional author cocitation analysis using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. The two word-based approaches produced similar outcomes except where two authors were frequent co-authors for the majority of their articles. The topic-based approach produced the most distinctive map.

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22