Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.094478235 = product of:
  0.12597097 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=2360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

0.0787103 = product of:
  0.10494707 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2027, 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=2027)
    0.04272246 = product of:
      0.08544492 = sum of:
        0.08544492 = weight(_text_:project in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08544492 = score(doc=2027,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.40387696 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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.

0.025540482 = product of:
  0.051080965 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
    0.024008986 = product of:
      0.04801797 = sum of:
        0.04801797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04801797 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

0.01865498 = product of:
  0.07461992 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=1089,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The extant literature demonstrates that the age-related digital divide prevents older adults from enhancing their quality of life. To bridge this gap and promote active aging, this study explores the interplay between social networks and older adults' use of information and communication technology (ICT). Using an action-oriented field research approach, we offered technical help (29 help sessions) to older adult participants recruited from western China. Then, we conducted content analysis to examine the obtained video, audio, and text data. Our results show that, first, different types of social networks significantly influence older adults' ICT use in terms of digital skills, engagement, and attitudes; however, these effects vary from person to person. In particular, our results highlight the crucial role of a stable and long-term supportive social network in learning and mastering ICT for older residents. Second, technical help facilitates the building and reinforcing of such a social network for the participants. Our study has strong implications in that policymakers can foster the digital inclusion of older people through supportive social networks.

0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 1898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=1898,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 1898, 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=1898)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to investigate the effects of different search and browse features in digital libraries (DLs) on task interactions, and what features would lead to poor user experience. Design/methodology/approach - Three operational DLs: ACM, IEEE CS, and IEEE Xplore are used in this study. These three DLs present different features in their search and browsing designs. Two information-seeking tasks are constructed: one search task and one browsing task. An experiment was conducted in a usability laboratory. Data from 35 participants are collected on a set of measures for user interactions. Findings - The results demonstrate significant differences in many aspects of the user interactions between the three DLs. For both search and browse designs, the features that lead to poor user interactions are identified. Research limitations/implications - User interactions are affected by specific design features in DLs. Some of the design features may lead to poor user performance and should be improved. The study was limited mainly in the variety and the number of tasks used. Originality/value - The study provided empirical evidence to the effects of interaction design features in DLs on user interactions and performance. The results contribute to our knowledge about DL designs in general and about the three operational DLs in particular.

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=5775,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5775, 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=5775)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Twitter is utilized by many, including professional businesses and organizations; however, there are very few studies on how other entities interact with these organizations in the Twittersphere. This article presents a study that investigates tweets related to 5 major library and information science (LIS) professional organizations in the United States. This study applies a systematic tweets analysis framework, including descriptive analytics, network analytics, and co-word analysis of hashtags. The findings shed light on user engagement with LIS professional organizations and the trending discussion topics on Twitter, which is valuable for enabling more successful social media use and greater influence.

0.0061664553 = product of:
  0.024665821 = sum of:
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 1335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=1335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 1335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With electronic book (e-book) sales and readership rising, are e-books positioned to replace print books? This study examines the preference for e-books and print books in the contexts of reading purpose, reading situation, and contextual variables such as age, gender, education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and Internet use. In addition, this study aims to identify factors that contribute to e-book adoption. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 2,986 people in the United States from the Reading Habits Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2011/December-2011--Reading-Habits.aspx). While the results of this study support the notion that e-books have firmly established a place in people's lives, due to their convenience of access, e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books. Both print books and e-books have unique attributes and serve irreplaceable functions to meet people's reading needs, which may vary by individual demographic, contextual, and situational factors. At this point, the leading significant predictors of e-book adoption are the number of books read, the individual's income, the occurrence and frequency of reading for research topics of interest, and the individual's Internet use, followed by other variables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school, age, and education.

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 1884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=1884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 1884, 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=1884)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, the authors report a series of evaluations of two metadata schemes developed for Moving Image Collections (MIC), an integrated online catalog of moving images. Through two online surveys and one experiment spanning various stages of metadata implementation, the MIC evaluation team explored a user-centered approach in which the four generic user tasks suggested by IFLA FRBR (International Association of Library Associations Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records) were embedded in data collection and analyses. Diverse groups of users rated usefulness of individual metadata fields for finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining moving images. The results demonstrate a consistency across these evaluations with respect to (a) identification of a set of useful metadata fields highly rated by target users for each of the FRBR generic tasks, and (b) indication of a significant interaction between MIC metadata fields and the FRBR generic tasks. The findings provide timely feedback for the MIC implementation specifically, and valuable suggestions to other similar metadata application settings in general. They also suggest the feasibility of using the four IFLA FRBR generic tasks as a framework for user-centered functional metadata evaluations.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5071, 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=5071)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 663, 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=663)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 993, 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=993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:18:34

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12