Search (568 results, page 1 of 29)

0.11490267 = product of:
  0.172354 = sum of:
    0.15215923 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15215923 = score(doc=1540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5358256 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.113588974 = product of:
  0.17038345 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=3609,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 3609, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3609)
    0.026926363 = product of:
      0.053852726 = sum of:
        0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 3609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053852726 = score(doc=3609,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3609, 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=3609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The EIA project was funded by the Online Public Access Initiative, a federal initiative of the australian Department of communications and the Arts. It was designed to establish a systematic method to introduce the Web to clients who have physical disability, are housebound, elderly, or are cognitively impaired. It was a touchscreen and kiosk Web browser to assist in overcoming various physical or cognitive hurdles

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.10245132 = product of:
  0.15367697 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=3198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 3198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3198)
    0.02815202 = product of:
      0.05630404 = sum of:
        0.05630404 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05630404 = score(doc=3198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 3198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: PFEFFER, H.-J.: Gopher und Veronica; KOCH, T.: Searching the Web: systematic overview over indexes; JANKA, D.: Online-Bibliothekskataloge in Gopher und World Wide Web; PRICE, D.: Indexing the world: current developments in accessing distributed information; RUSCH-FEJA, D.D.: Structuring subject information sources in the Internet; KEMPF, A.: Forstliche Klassifikation und Meta-Information zum Wald im Internet; KOCH, T.: Improving resource discovery and retrieval on the Internet: the Nordic WAIS/World Wide Web Project and the classification of WAIS databases; ASSFOLG, R. u. R. HAMMWOEHNER: Das Konstanzer Hypertext-System (KHS) und das Worldwide Web (WWW): Mehrwert durch Integration

0.095752224 = product of:
  0.14362833 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=1622,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
    0.016828977 = product of:
      0.033657953 = sum of:
        0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033657953 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1622, 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=1622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to engage in a systematic analysis of academic research that relies on the collection and use of Twitter data, creating topology of Twitter research that details the disciplines and methods of analysis, amount of tweets and users under analysis, the methods used to collect Twitter data, and accounts of ethical considerations related to these projects. Design/methodology/approach - Content analysis of 382 academic publications from 2006 to 2012 that used Twitter as their primary platform for data collection and analysis. Findings - The analysis of over 380 scholarly publications utilizing Twitter data reveals noteworthy trends related to the growth of Twitter-based research overall, the disciplines engaged in such research, the methods of acquiring Twitter data for analysis, and emerging ethical considerations of such research. Research limitations/implications - The findings provide a benchmark analysis that must be updated with the continued growth of Twitter-based research. Originality/value - The research is the first full-text systematic analysis of Twitter-based research projects, focussing on the growth in discipline and methods as well as its ethical implications. It is of value for the broader research community currently engaged in social media-based research, and will prompt reflexive evaluation of what research is occurring, how it is occurring, what is being done with Twitter data, and how researchers are addressing the ethics of Twitter-based research.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.07179992 = product of:
  0.10769987 = sum of:
    0.07172854 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07172854 = score(doc=1669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.2525906 = fieldWeight in 1669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1669)
    0.035971332 = product of:
      0.071942665 = sum of:
        0.071942665 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071942665 = score(doc=1669,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.3782744 = fieldWeight in 1669, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

After a short outline of problems, possibilities and difficulties of systematic information retrieval on the Internet and a description of efforts for development in this area, a specification of the terminology for this report is required. Although the process of retrieval is generally seen as an iterative process of browsing and information retrieval and several important services on the net have taken this fact into consideration, the emphasis of this report lays on the general retrieval tools for the whole of Internet. In order to be able to evaluate the differences, possibilities and restrictions of the different services it is necessary to begin with organizing the existing varieties in a typological/ taxonomical survey. The possibilities and weaknesses will be briefly compared and described for the most important services in the categories robot-based WWW-catalogues of different types, list- or form-based catalogues and simultaneous or collected search services respectively. It will however for different reasons not be possible to rank them in order of "best" services. Still more important are the weaknesses and problems common for all attempts of indexing the Internet. The problems of the quality of the input, the technical performance and the general problem of indexing virtual hypertext are shown to be at least as difficult as the different aspects of harvesting, indexing and information retrieval. Some of the attempts made in the area of further development of retrieval services will be mentioned in relation to descriptions of the contents of documents and standardization efforts. Internet harvesting and indexing technology and retrieval software is thoroughly reviewed. Details about all services and software are listed in analytical forms in Annex 1-3.

0.06895012 = product of:
  0.20685035 = sum of:
    0.20685035 = sum of:
      0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11260808 = score(doc=6140,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 6140, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6140)
      0.09424227 = weight(_text_:22 in 6140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09424227 = score(doc=6140,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6140, 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=6140)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Indexing in the Internet era

0.059100103 = product of:
  0.1773003 = sum of:
    0.1773003 = sum of:
      0.09652121 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09652121 = score(doc=4734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
      0.08077908 = weight(_text_:22 in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08077908 = score(doc=4734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes tools for searching information on the Internet including guides, subject catalogues, lists, and automatic indexing

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.050719745 = product of:
  0.15215923 = sum of:
    0.15215923 = weight(_text_:systematic in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15215923 = score(doc=529,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5358256 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The WWW has a decentralized information environment and a non linear (hypertext) information structure. This non linear structure allows users to retriev information at many different levels but also increases the difficulty of information retrieval. Unlike a well developed CD-ROM database, the WWW does not have a controlled searching environment and information can be indexed in many different ways. It takes a well planned search strategy to perform an effective search in the labyrinth of the WWW. The SIRO (Systematic Information Retrieval/Organization) model offers a research planning process designed specifically for information seekers in the agricultural disciplines designed to enhance search results and organize retrieved information. This process starts with the identification of the information structure on the WWW, then proceeds by organizing and analyzing information in a visual diagram or a 'thinking map'. This process leads searchers to logical sources on the WWW and a systematic analysis of the result

0.050719745 = product of:
  0.15215923 = sum of:
    0.15215923 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15215923 = score(doc=4288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5358256 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As Social Network Sites (SNSs) are increasingly becoming part of people's everyday lives, the implications of their use need to be investigated and understood. We conducted a systematic literature review to lay the groundwork for understanding the relationship between SNS use and users' psychological well-being and for devising strategies for taking advantage of this relationship. The review included articles published between 2003 and 2016, extracted from major academic databases. Findings revealed that the use of SNSs is both positively and negatively related to users' psychological well-being. We discuss the factors that moderate this relationship and their implications on users' psychological well-being. Many of the studies we reviewed lacked a sound theoretical justification for their findings and most involved young and healthy students, leaving other cohorts of SNS users neglected. The paper concludes with the presentation of a platform for future investigation.

0.050719745 = product of:
  0.15215923 = sum of:
    0.15215923 = weight(_text_:systematic in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15215923 = score(doc=549,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5358256 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The spread of misinformation on social media has become a major societal issue during recent years. In this work, we used the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as a case study to systematically investigate factors associated with the spread of multi-topic misinformation related to one event on social media based on the heuristic-systematic model. Among factors related to systematic processing of information, we discovered that the topics of a misinformation story matter, with conspiracy theories being the most likely to be retweeted. As for factors related to heuristic processing of information, such as when citizens look up to their leaders during such a crisis, our results demonstrated that behaviors of a political leader, former US President Donald J. Trump, may have nudged people's sharing of COVID-19 misinformation. Outcomes of this study help social media platform and users better understand and prevent the spread of misinformation on social media.

0.04925008 = product of:
  0.14775024 = sum of:
    0.14775024 = sum of:
      0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08043434 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
      0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06731591 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Methods and techniques for indexing and retrieving World Wide Web resources

Source

Boletin de la Asociacion Andaluza de Bibliotecarios. 14(1999) no.57, S.11-22

0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=2791,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 2791, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2791)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Offers 10 tips for finding information on the Internet. Define the area and level of expertise. Require end users to complete a request form defining the query. Categorize the Internat in lay terms for casual users. Establich a realistic time for retrieving results. Adopt a disciplined, systematic approach to the search. Understand the operating platform and the major tools available. Maintain a file of important services and addresses and users. Develop bookmarks and home pages. Learn shortcuts. Participate in the Internet Hunt (a monthly series of questions that allows searchers to practice and perfect search skills)

0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Covers the differences between traditional databases and the Internet, the choice of information seeking tools and methods for different types of searches, i.e. specific or complex. Stresses the importance of systematic searching and planning for searches, the choice of search terms and phrases, and the use of links. Mentions Internet Hunt (http://www.hunt.org/) and Net Stumpers Quiz (http://www.delphi.com/swashzone/netstumpers/stumpers.html/) as good ways of learning to search the net

0.042266455 = product of:
  0.12679936 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=2218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 2218, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2218)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The quality of online health information for consumers has been a critical issue that concerns all stakeholders in healthcare. To gain an understanding of how quality is evaluated, this systematic review examined 165 articles in which researchers evaluated the quality of consumer-oriented health information on the web against predefined criteria. It was found that studies typically evaluated quality in relation to the substance and formality of content, as well as to the design of technological platforms. Attention to design, particularly interactivity, privacy, and social and cultural appropriateness is on the rise, which suggests the permeation of a user-centered perspective into the evaluation of health information systems, and a growing recognition of the need to study these systems from a social-technical perspective. Researchers used many preexisting instruments to facilitate evaluation of the formality of content; however, only a few were used in multiple studies, and their validity was questioned. The quality of content (i.e., accuracy and completeness) was always evaluated using proprietary instruments constructed based on medical guidelines or textbooks. The evaluation results revealed that the quality of health information varied across medical domains and across websites, and that the overall quality remained problematic. Future research is needed to examine the quality of user-generated content and to explore opportunities offered by emerging new media that can facilitate the consumer evaluation of health information.

0.042266455 = product of:
  0.12679936 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=5292,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 5292, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5292)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Internet has become the first source of consumer health information. Most theoretical and empirical studies are centered on information needs and seeking, rather than on information outcomes. This review's purpose is to explore and explain health outcomes of Online Consumer Health Information (OCHI) in primary care. A participatory systematic mixed studies review with a framework synthesis was undertaken. Starting from an initial conceptual framework, our specific objectives were to (a) identify types of OCHI outcomes in primary care, (b) identify factors associated with these outcomes, and (c) integrate these factors and outcomes into a comprehensive revised framework combining an information theory and a psychosocial theory of behavior. The results of 65 included studies were synthesized using a qualitative thematic data analysis. The themes derived from the literature underwent a harmonization process that produced a comprehensive typology of OCHI outcomes. The revised conceptual framework specifies four individual and one organizational level of OCHI outcomes, while including factors such as consumers' information needs and four interdependent contextual factors. It contributes to theoretical knowledge about OCHI health outcomes, and informs future research, information assessment methods, and tools to help consumers find and use health information.

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=3879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 3879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3879)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As the information available via Internet continues to proliferate so it gains increasing importance and legitimacy throughout the scientific community. As the network grows into one of a multiplicity of sources of knowledge, so there is a pressing need for systematic, standardized mechanisms to identify, locate and describe the network's information resources. Argues that there is a functional difference between online information and networked information; in that the configuration and architecture of the former is basically star shaped, with terminals linked to a central computer, whereas the latter involves reticular connection witt the network behaving as an interconnection of interconnected nodes. Lists and describes some of the searching tools and gophers designed to assist Internet searchers, including: Archie; WAIS; Veronica; and Jughead

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=550,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 550, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=550)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although at first sight the WWW appears to have the potential for making printed reference sources obsolete, a systematic study of 104 reference questions, at the West Virginia Library Commission, demonstrated that, although the WWW is a powerful source of information, at the present time it is not a source that will answer a majority of reference questions. The WWW is strong in some categories of referenc equestions and weak in others. Time spent searching the WWW is another factor that must be taken into consideration by reference librarians. Concludes that it is not a wise decision to discard a reference book that will answer a question in 5 minutes when it will take 20 minutes to find the answer on the Web

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=2338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 2338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2338)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Hundreds of thousands of hashtags are generated every day on Twitter. Only a few will burst and become trending topics. In this article, we provide the definition of a bursting hashtag and conduct a systematic study of a series of challenging prediction problems that span the entire life cycles of bursting hashtags. Around the problem of "how to build a system to predict bursting hashtags," we explore different types of features and present machine learning solutions. On real data sets from Twitter, experiments are conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solutions and the contributions of features.

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.