Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.051394187 = product of:
  0.06852558 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
    0.032089777 = weight(_text_:research in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032089777 = score(doc=2735,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
    0.017092798 = product of:
      0.034185596 = sum of:
        0.034185596 = weight(_text_:22 in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034185596 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This exploratory study examines how design engineers and technical professionals (hereafter referred to as engineers) in innovative high-tech firms in the United States and India use information in their daily work activities including research, development, and management. The researchers used naturalistic observation to conduct a series of daylong workplace observations with 103 engineers engaged in product design and testing in four U.S.- and two India-based firms. A key finding is that engineers spend about one fourth of their day engaged in some type of information event, which was somewhat lower than the percentage identified in previous research. The explanation may be rooted in the significant change in the information environment and corporate expectations in the last 15 years, which is the time of the original study. Searching technology has improved, making searching less time consuming, and engineers are choosing the Internet as a primary source even though information may not be as focused, as timely, or as authoritative. The study extends our understanding of the engineering workplace, and the information environment in the workplace, and provides information useful for improving methods for accessing and using information, which could ultimately lead to better job performance, facilitate innovation, and encourage economic growth.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:37

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.443-454

0.039442435 = product of:
  0.07888487 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=1960,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=1960,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1393-1408

0.034427803 = product of:
  0.068855606 = sum of:
    0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925686 = score(doc=2343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
    0.023929918 = product of:
      0.047859836 = sum of:
        0.047859836 = weight(_text_:22 in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047859836 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Report of a survey 96 (out of 119) US and Canadian member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to determine their use of on-line and CD-ROM data bases, including OPACs. 4 catalogues were identified: on-line mediated searching (97%); CD-ROMs (96%); end-user on-line searching (45%); and locally mounted magnetic tapes (37,5%). The latter option is expected to be the most widely used option in the new future. Although CD-ROM caused some migration from on-line, most migration was from printed sources to CD-ROM. Tables show: on-line hosts most used for intermediary on-line searching; on-line data bases most after searched by intermediaries; end user on-line systems offered by most libraries; the 20 most popular CD-ROM data bases; and the 8 magnetic tape data bases accessible on OPACs

Source

Online. 16(1992) no.2, S.22-28

0.033627126 = product of:
  0.06725425 = sum of:
    0.030948812 = weight(_text_:science in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030948812 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03630544 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library and information science research. 13(1991) no.3, S.237-266

0.03280464 = product of:
  0.06560928 = sum of:
    0.031767257 = weight(_text_:research in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031767257 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
    0.033842016 = product of:
      0.06768403 = sum of:
        0.06768403 = weight(_text_:22 in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06768403 = score(doc=5170,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Reports a survey of all academic members of the Association of Research Libraries in the 4th quarter of 1997 which examined how academic libraries incorporate electronic information sources into their reference activities and the effects on libraries services. There was a response rate of 68 per cent, Compares results surveys carried out in 1991 and 1994. The survey covered: numbers of computers access options (intermediary, end user online, CD-ROM locally loaded databases or those accessible through the library catalogue and the Internet. There is a trend away from print resources, particularly indexing and abstracting materials, and away from CD-ROM LANs and local loading of databases towards remote online resources

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.4, S.22-28

0.0323624 = product of:
  0.0647248 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 1723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=1723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1723)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 1723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=1723,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 1723, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1723)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study into the use of discrete journal-article components, particularly tables and figures extracted from published scientific journal articles, and their application to teaching and research. Sixty participants were introduced to and asked to perform searches in a journal-article component prototype that presents individual tables and figures as the items returned in the search results set. Multiple methods, including questionnaires, observations, and structured diaries, were used to collect data. The results are analyzed in the context of previous studies on the use of scientific journal articles and in terms of research on scientists' use of specific journal-article components to find information, assess its relevance, read, interpret, and disaggregate the information found, and reaggregate components into new forms of information. Results indicate that scientists believe searching for journal-article components has value in terms of (a) higher precision result sets, (b) better match between the granularity of the prototype's index and the granularity of the information sought for particular tasks, and (c) fit between journal-article component searching and the established teaching and research practices of scientists.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.6, S.970-982

0.031826958 = product of:
  0.063653916 = sum of:
    0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 2616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03630544 = score(doc=2616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 2616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2616)
    0.027348477 = product of:
      0.054696955 = sum of:
        0.054696955 = weight(_text_:22 in 2616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054696955 = score(doc=2616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Reports on a survey of ARL (Ass. of Research Libraries) members in the USA in 1994, which sought to find out the electronic reference services that are offered by these libraries and how the services affect reference staff, the expectations of users, and user instruction. The services covered include CD-ROM, intermediary online searching, end user online (e.g. FirstSearch), tape loaded databases and user access to the Internet, including electronic mail facilities. Highlights the additional workload the provision of these services involves, and the sometimes unrealistic expectations of users especially with regard to Internet resources

Date

25.11.1995 19:22:01

0.030859668 = product of:
  0.061719336 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
    0.03850773 = weight(_text_:research in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03850773 = score(doc=3113,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2344-2361

0.030027626 = product of:
  0.060055252 = sum of:
    0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 6700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032826174 = score(doc=6700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 6700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6700)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 6700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=6700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 6700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6700)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Database usage data from a random sample of academic and public libraries in the U.S. and Canada reveals patterns of use in selected types of libraries. Library users in both public and academic libraries tend to use commercial online databases most frequently early in the week, mid-day, and at times that correspond to the academic calendar (November in this six-month sample.) The mean number of simultaneous users is correlated with the size of the population served and the number of workstations available, but relatively low numbers of users are simultaneously logged on to research databases at all sizes of libraries. A questionnaire sent to these same libraries identified many other factors that might influence database use, including levels of instruction, availability of remote login, placement of a database on the library's homepage, although none of these factors was found to be statistically significant

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.028096987 = product of:
  0.056193974 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=2027,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.025220342 = product of:
  0.050440684 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Surveys of the members of the American Astronomical Society identify how astronomers use journals and what features and formats they prefer. While every work field is distinct, the patterns of use by astronomers may provide a glimpse of what to expect of journal patterns and use by other scientists. Astronomers, like other scientists, continue to invest a large amount of their time in reading articles and place a high level of importance an journal articles. They use a wide variety of formats and means to get access to materials that are essential to their work in teaching, service, and research. They select access means that are convenient-whether those means be print, electronic, or both. The availability of a mature electronic journals system from their primary professional society has surely influenced their early adoption of e-journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.786-802

0.021016954 = product of:
  0.042033907 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper examines how scientists working in government agencies in the U.S. are reacting to the "ethos of sharing" government-generated data. For scientists to leverage the value of existing government data sets, critical data sets must be identified and made as widely available as possible. However, government data sets can only be leveraged when policy makers first assess the value of data, in much the same way they decide the value of grants for research outside government. We argue that legislators should also remove structural barriers to interoperability by funding technical infrastructure according to issue clusters rather than administrative programs. As developers attempt to make government data more accessible through portals, they should consider a range of other nontechnical constraints attached to the data. We find that agencies react to the large number of constraints by mostly posting their data on their own websites only rather than in data portals that can facilitate sharing. Despite the nontechnical constraints, we find that scientists working in government agencies exercise some autonomy in data decisions, such as data documentation, which determine whether or not the data can be widely shared. Fortunately, scientists indicate a willingness to share the data they collect or maintain. However, we argue further that a complete measure of access should also consider the normative decisions to collect (or not) particular data.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.251-262

0.016674336 = product of:
  0.066697344 = sum of:
    0.066697344 = weight(_text_:research in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066697344 = score(doc=35,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.46326676 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Increased reliance on electronic resources requires examination of the roles of librarians in several key ways. This paper addresses the need for further research into three important areas of electronic publishing. How is the change to digital information sources affecting the scholarly work of college and university students? Previous research shows that students rely on Web and online resources and ask for less help from librarians. We do not know, however, how these changes will affect the learning and scholarly work of college and university students. Research is also needed to determine how the differences between separate article and full journal databases affect the way research is done. What are the implications for scholarship of decisions being made about what publishers publish and what librarians purchase? Finally, are librarians--as intermediaries to the search process--still necessary in a digital age? Online systems are designed to be used independently but that may not always yield the best results.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Research questions for the twenty-first century

0.015883628 = product of:
  0.06353451 = sum of:
    0.06353451 = weight(_text_:research in 6869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06353451 = score(doc=6869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 6869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6869)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

College and research libraries. 61(2000) no.3, S.234-246

0.015474406 = product of:
  0.061897624 = sum of:
    0.061897624 = weight(_text_:science in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061897624 = score(doc=398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=398)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 19(1984), S.215-246

0.01134545 = product of:
  0.0453818 = sum of:
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 2609, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2609)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports the results of a 1994 survey of the academic library memebers of the Association of Research Libraries, USA, to discover what types of electronic reference services they offer and how these services affect reference librarians' jobs and user and staff training. This survey was a follow up to an earlier survey in 1991

0.0112314215 = product of:
  0.044925686 = sum of:
    0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925686 = score(doc=686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Three questions - what can be studied; how can studies be done; and what can be measured - drive research methods and help to identify information metrics for user studies. User studies can investigate user needs, search strategies, or preferences. Observing and asking, the two main methods for conducting user studies, yield quantitative and qualitative data through studying patterns of behavior and insights into motivation. ciber (Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, City University, London) is in a good position to continue supporting information user behavior studies that use a variety of methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative data and help establish consistent metrics.

0.00907636 = product of:
  0.03630544 = sum of:
    0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 6286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03630544 = score(doc=6286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 6286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6286)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Academic and special research libraries in the US and Canada access on average 7,4 online systems. This probably doubles or triples when including CD-ROMs and locally loaded databases. Examines the many ways in which online versions of databases can vary on different systems. Discusses the differences of updating, dates covered, price, subfile structure, field subdivisions, content or inclusion, support features and system search features. Provides statistics on these differences

0.00907636 = product of:
  0.03630544 = sum of:
    0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 7471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03630544 = score(doc=7471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 7471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7471)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses a number of trends in the provision of commerical research online systems to end users, as opposed to professional intermediaries. The trends highlighted include: Web versions of, for example, FirstSearch and EBSCOhost; end user access via the library, which cushions the user from direct paymant for use; the integration of information sources in specific subject areas; the rethinking of proprietary software solutions; and the provision of specialized products with a very specific customer focus

0.00907636 = product of:
  0.03630544 = sum of:
    0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 2191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03630544 = score(doc=2191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 2191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2191)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on a survey of electronic reference sources and their impact on the work of reference librarians. Reference librarians in university libraries in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in the USA were asked to comment on how the library's use of such sources has changed over the past 2 to 3 years and how the work of reference staff has changed. The themes highlighted by the survey include changes in user instructions; the impact of technology; the rising expectations of users; and 'technostress'