Search (133 results, page 1 of 7)

0.06394671 = product of:
  0.12789342 = sum of:
    0.12789342 = sum of:
      0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086370535 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Nuovo soggettario, the official Italian subject indexing system edited by the National Central Library of Florence, is made up of interactive components, the core of which is a general thesaurus and some rules of a conventional syntax for subject string construction. The Nuovo soggettario Thesaurus is in compliance with ISO 25964: 2011-2013, IFLA LRM, and FAIR principle (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). Its open data are available in the Zthes, MARC21, and in SKOS formats and allow for interoperability with l library, archive, and museum databases. The Thesaurus's macrostructure is organized into four fundamental macro-categories, thirteen categories, and facets. The facets allow for the orderly development of hierarchies, thereby limiting polyhierarchies and promoting the grouping of homogenous concepts. This paper addresses the main features and peculiarities which have characterized the consistent development of this categorical structure and its effects on the syntactic sphere in a predominantly pre-coordinated usage context.

Date

26.11.2023 18:59:22

0.05328892 = product of:
  0.10657784 = sum of:
    0.10657784 = sum of:
      0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07197544 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.

0.05328892 = product of:
  0.10657784 = sum of:
    0.10657784 = sum of:
      0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07197544 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 921, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=921)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=921,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = 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)

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

0.05328892 = product of:
  0.10657784 = sum of:
    0.10657784 = sum of:
      0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07197544 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.040563382 = product of:
  0.081126764 = sum of:
    0.081126764 = product of:
      0.2433803 = sum of:
        0.2433803 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2433803 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.03739954 = product of:
  0.07479908 = sum of:
    0.07479908 = product of:
      0.14959817 = sum of:
        0.14959817 = weight(_text_:core in 3811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14959817 = score(doc=3811,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5798972 = fieldWeight in 3811, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many features of the U.S. political economy arise from the interactions between large political and economic institutions, and yet we know little about the nature of their interactions and the power distribution between these institutions. In this paper, we present a detailed analysis of networks of U.S.-based organizations, where edges represent three different kinds of relationships, namely owner-owned (ownerships), donor-donee (donations), and service provider-payee (transactions). Our findings suggest that in the ownerships network, the financial organizations form the core, and banking organizations hold strategic locations in the network. In the transactions network, the government organizations and agencies form the core, and defense-related organizations form the backbone. In contrast, with the donations network, no specific domain of organizations forms either the core or the backbone.

0.03598772 = product of:
  0.07197544 = sum of:
    0.07197544 = product of:
      0.14395088 = sum of:
        0.14395088 = weight(_text_:core in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14395088 = score(doc=1077,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5580063 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose This paper offers a definition of the core of information science, which encompasses most research in the field. The definition provides a unique identity for information science and positions it in the disciplinary universe. Design/methodology/approach After motivating the objective, a definition of the core and an explanation of its key aspects are provided. The definition is related to other definitions of information science before controversial discourse aspects are briefly addressed: discipline vs. field, science vs. humanities, library vs. information science and application vs. theory. Interdisciplinarity as an often-assumed foundation of information science is challenged. Findings Information science is concerned with how information is manifested across space and time. Information is manifested to facilitate and support the representation, access, documentation and preservation of ideas, activities, or practices, and to enable different types of interactions. Research and professional practice encompass the infrastructures - institutions and technology -and phenomena and practices around manifested information across space and time as its core contribution to the scholarly landscape. Information science collaborates with other disciplines to work on complex information problems that need multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to address them. Originality/value The paper argues that new information problems may change the core of the field, but throughout its existence, the discipline has remained quite stable in its central focus, yet proved to be highly adaptive to the tremendous changes in the forms, practices, institutions and technologies around and for manifested information.

0.035626028 = product of:
  0.071252055 = sum of:
    0.071252055 = product of:
      0.14250411 = sum of:
        0.14250411 = weight(_text_:core in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14250411 = score(doc=294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5523981 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The mapping from BIBFRAME 2.0 to Resource Description and Access (RDA) is studied focusing on core entities, inherent relationships, and derivative relationships. The proposed mapping rules are evaluated with two gold datasets. Findings indicate that 1) core entities, inherent and derivative relationships may be mapped to RDA, 2) the use of the bf:hasExpression property may cluster bf:Works with the same ideational content and enable their mapping to RDA Works with their Expressions, and 3) cataloging policies have a significant impact on the interoperability between RDA and BIBFRAME datasets. This work complements the investigation of semantic interoperability between the two models previously presented in this journal.

0.033802822 = product of:
  0.067605644 = sum of:
    0.067605644 = product of:
      0.20281692 = sum of:
        0.20281692 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20281692 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.033802822 = product of:
  0.067605644 = sum of:
    0.067605644 = product of:
      0.20281692 = sum of:
        0.20281692 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20281692 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.031166283 = product of:
  0.062332567 = sum of:
    0.062332567 = product of:
      0.12466513 = sum of:
        0.12466513 = weight(_text_:core in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12466513 = score(doc=1206,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.48324767 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.025447162 = product of:
  0.050894324 = sum of:
    0.050894324 = product of:
      0.10178865 = sum of:
        0.10178865 = weight(_text_:core in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10178865 = score(doc=671,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.39457005 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Algorithms influence every facet of modern life: criminal justice, education, housing, entertainment, elections, social media, news feeds, work... the list goes on. Delegating important decisions to machines, however, gives rise to deep moral concerns about responsibility, transparency, freedom, fairness, and democracy. Algorithms and Autonomy connects these concerns to the core human value of autonomy in the contexts of algorithmic teacher evaluation, risk assessment in criminal sentencing, predictive policing, background checks, news feeds, ride-sharing platforms, social media, and election interference. Using these case studies, the authors provide a better understanding of machine fairness and algorithmic transparency. They explain why interventions in algorithmic systems are necessary to ensure that algorithms are not used to control citizens' participation in politics and undercut democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core

0.025447162 = product of:
  0.050894324 = sum of:
    0.050894324 = product of:
      0.10178865 = sum of:
        0.10178865 = weight(_text_:core in 788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10178865 = score(doc=788,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.39457005 = fieldWeight in 788, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Begriff Ontologie stammt ursprünglich aus der Metaphysik, einem Teilbereich der Philosophie, welcher sich um die Erkenntnis der Grundstruktur und Prinzipien der Wirklichkeit bemüht. Ontologien befassen sich dabei mit der Frage, welche Dinge auf der fundamentalsten Ebene existieren, wie sich diese strukturieren lassen und in welchen Beziehungen diese zueinanderstehen. In der Informationswissenschaft hingegen werden Ontologien verwendet, um das Vokabular für die Beschreibung von Wissensbereichen zu formalisieren. Ziel ist es, dass alle Akteure, die in diesen Bereichen tätig sind, die gleichen Konzepte und Begrifflichkeiten verwenden, um eine reibungslose Zusammenarbeit ohne Missverständnisse zu ermöglichen. So definierte zum Beispiel die Dublin Core Metadaten Initiative 15 Kernelemente, die zur Beschreibung von elektronischen Ressourcen und Medien verwendet werden können. Jedes Element wird durch eine eindeutige Bezeichnung (zum Beispiel identifier) und eine zugehörige Konzeption, welche die Bedeutung dieser Bezeichnung möglichst exakt festlegt, beschrieben. Ein Identifier muss zum Beispiel laut der Dublin Core Ontologie ein Dokument basierend auf einem zugehörigen Katalog eindeutig identifizieren. Je nach Katalog kämen daher zum Beispiel eine ISBN (Katalog von Büchern), ISSN (Katalog von Zeitschriften), URL (Web), DOI (Publikationsdatenbank) etc. als Identifier in Frage.

0.025191406 = product of:
  0.05038281 = sum of:
    0.05038281 = product of:
      0.10076562 = sum of:
        0.10076562 = weight(_text_:core in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10076562 = score(doc=5929,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.39060444 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A systematic literature review is carried out, detailing the research topics and the methods and techniques used in information science in studies published between 2000 and 2019. The results obtained allow us to affirm that there is no consensus on the core topics of information science, as these evolve and change dynamically in relation to other disciplines, and with the dominant social and cultural contexts. With regard to the research methods and techniques, it can be stated that they have mostly been adopted from social sciences, with the addition of numerical methods, especially in the fields of bibliometric and scientometric research.

0.025191406 = product of:
  0.05038281 = sum of:
    0.05038281 = product of:
      0.10076562 = sum of:
        0.10076562 = weight(_text_:core in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10076562 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.39060444 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Authority data has always been at the core of library catalogues. Today, authority data is reference data on a wider scale. The former authorities of the "Sudoc" union catalogue mutated into "IdRef", a read/write platform of open data and services which seeks to become a national supplier of reliable identifiers for French universities. To support their dissemination and comply with high quality standards, Paprika and Qualinka have been added to our toolbox, to expedite the massive and secure linking of scientific publications to IdRef authorities.

0.02422168 = product of:
  0.04844336 = sum of:
    0.04844336 = product of:
      0.09688672 = sum of:
        0.09688672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09688672 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.021592634 = product of:
  0.043185268 = sum of:
    0.043185268 = product of:
      0.086370535 = sum of:
        0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086370535 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a new paradigm to address the persistence of difficulties that people have in accessing and using information. Our idea consists of two main aspects: engaging wider society with usability and distributing the topic across disciplines. We claim that bad usability is a social justice issue. Primarily, we propose that usability should become the subject of widespread activism across society, enabling more people to realize that their usability problems are not due to inadequacies in themselves but in current designs. People should be encouraged and enabled to complain about their experiences with an expectation of improvements. We also propose that the current restriction of this topic to certain disciplinary units is overly narrow and that instead there should be radical embedding of usability concepts across many different fields and settings. We believe that the usability of information systems is core to information science and that information scientists should resume their historic role as heralds and pioneers of human-computer interaction.

0.021592634 = product of:
  0.043185268 = sum of:
    0.043185268 = product of:
      0.086370535 = sum of:
        0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086370535 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent events reveal the potential for information technologies to threaten democratic participation and destabilize knowledge institutions. These are core concerns for researchers working within the area of critical information studies-yet these companies have also demonstrated novel tactics for obscuring their operations, reducing the ability of scholars to speak about how harms are perpetuated or to link them to larger systems. While scholars' methods and ethical conventions have historically privileged the agency of research participants, the current landscape suggests the value of exploring methods that would reveal actions that are purposefully hidden. We propose investigation as a model for critical information studies and review the methods and epistemological conventions of investigative journalists as a provocative example, noting that their orientation toward those in power enables them to discuss societal harms in ways that academic researchers often cannot. We conclude by discussing key topics, such as process accountability and institutional norms, that should feature in discussions of how academic researchers might position investigation in relation to their own work.

0.021592634 = product of:
  0.043185268 = sum of:
    0.043185268 = product of:
      0.086370535 = sum of:
        0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086370535 = score(doc=559,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 559, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The amount of scientific papers is growing together with the development of science itself; but, although there is an unprecedented availability of large citation indexes, some daily activities of researchers remain time-consuming and poorly supported. In this paper, we present Visual Bibliographies (VisualBib), a real-time visual platform, designed using a zz-structure-based model for linking metadata and a narrative, visual approach for showing bibliographies. VisualBib represents a usable, advanced, and visual tool, which simplifies the management of bibliographies, supports a core set of bibliographic tasks, and helps researchers during complex analyses on scientific bibliographies. We present the variety of metadata formats and visualization methods, proposing two use case scenarios. The maturity of the system implementation allowed us two studies, for evaluating both the effectiveness of VisualBib in providing answers to specific data analysis tasks and to support experienced users during real-life uses. The results of the evaluation are positive and describe an effective and usable platform.

0.021592634 = product of:
  0.043185268 = sum of:
    0.043185268 = product of:
      0.086370535 = sum of:
        0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086370535 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study focuses on cataloging quality and how it is defined by information professionals, specifically university library catalogers. Although there is no single and objective definition of 'cataloging quality,' research aims to specify its core characteristics. The goal is to define the modern cataloging environment, as well as the tools and opportunities it provides, and to improve the success of academic library services for both professional catalogers and users, who are the final consumers of the information. Regarding methodology, a sample survey was chosen. The survey results revealed that the quality of cataloging is determined by several factors, including technical features of the data, adherence to standards, the cataloging process, user satisfaction, and the development of a general quality culture.