Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0447122 = product of:
  0.0894244 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 6667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=6667,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 6667, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6667)
    0.05073839 = weight(_text_:research in 6667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05073839 = score(doc=6667,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.352419 = fieldWeight in 6667, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6667)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

How knowledge is organized in human memory is of interest to both information science and cognitive science. The current information retrieval (IR) systems can be improved if we understand which conceptual structures could facilitate users in information processing and seeking. This project examined twenty-two cognitive maps on ten research topics generated by ten experts and eleven non-experts. Experts were those who had completed a research project on the topic prior to participating in this study, while non-experts were from the same academic department who were familiar with the topic but had not conducted any in-depth research on it. A research topic can be represented by a vocabulary and the relationships among the terms in the vocabulary. A cognitive map visualizes the vocabulary and its configuration in a plane. We observed that experts did not generate the maps much faster than non-experts. Both experts and non-experts modified the given vocabulary by either adding or dropping terms. The dominant configuration for the maps was top-down, while five maps were orientated in left-right or radical structure (from a center). Experts tended to use problem-oriented approach to organize the vocabulary while non-experts often applied discipline-oriented hierarchical structure. Despite of many differences in vocabulary and structure by individuals, there are terms clustered in a similar ways across maps indicating an agreed-upon semantic closeness among these terms

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

0.043707848 = product of:
  0.087415695 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 4075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=4075,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4075, 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=4075)
    0.06807269 = weight(_text_:research in 4075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06807269 = score(doc=4075,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.47281966 = fieldWeight in 4075, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4075)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This is Part II of an experimental study investigating students' perceptions of research and research paper anxiety. The study integrates quantitative and qualitative designs to collect complimentary data. The participants were students in four sections of an upper division undergraduate course on technical and professional writing during the fall of 1999. A survey instrument used the Critical Incident Technique to solicit writings in students' own words about a memorable past research and writing experience at the beginning of the semester and the current research and writing at the end of the semester. The quantitative part of the survey measured students' perceptions about research using a questionnaire with five-point Likert scale, and students' anxiety levels using a standard state anxiety test (STAI Y-1). The first article, Part 1, provides a detailed description of the experimental design and reports on quantitative results. This article reports on content analysis of students' writings about their experiences of the two research projects. Analysis of the data confirmed Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model and revealed additional affective and cognitive aspects related to research and writing.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.295-307

0.037315547 = product of:
  0.074631095 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=5505,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5505, 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=5505)
    0.055288088 = product of:
      0.110576175 = sum of:
        0.110576175 = weight(_text_:network in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110576175 = score(doc=5505,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.492033 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Currently, web document repositories have been collaboratively created and edited. One of these repositories, Wikipedia, is facing an important problem: assessing the quality of Wikipedia. Existing approaches exploit techniques such as statistical models or machine leaning algorithms to assess Wikipedia article quality. However, existing models do not provide satisfactory results. Furthermore, these models fail to adopt a comprehensive feature framework. In this article, we conduct an extensive survey of previous studies and summarize a comprehensive feature framework, including text statistics, writing style, readability, article structure, network, and editing history. Selected state-of-the-art deep-learning models, including the convolutional neural network (CNN), deep neural network (DNN), long short-term memory (LSTMs) network, CNN-LSTMs, bidirectional LSTMs, and stacked LSTMs, are applied to assess the quality of Wikipedia. A detailed comparison of deep-learning models is conducted with regard to different aspects: classification performance and training performance. We include an importance analysis of different features and feature sets to determine which features or feature sets are most effective in distinguishing Wikipedia article quality. This extensive experiment validates the effectiveness of the proposed model.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.16-28

0.03600295 = product of:
  0.0720059 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 7352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=7352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 7352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7352)
    0.044925686 = weight(_text_:research in 7352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925686 = score(doc=7352,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 7352, 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=7352)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Identifies aspects of citing behaviour by directly questioning researchers about decisions to cite or not to cite specific docuements. Finds the existence of meta-level concerns which may indictae documentation styles which influence a decision to cite a document in addition to situation factors related to its actual use during research. Reports the preliminary results of the citing decisions in an empirical, longitudinal study of document use by academic economists and gradutae students during several phases of their research projects

Source

Global complexity: information, chaos and control. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, ASIS'96, Baltimore, Maryland, 21-24 Oct 1996. Ed.: S. Hardin

0.029322399 = product of:
  0.058644798 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=2940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2940, 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=2940)
    0.03930179 = weight(_text_:research in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03930179 = score(doc=2940,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article reports on the follow-up study of a two-part project designed to study the decision-making process underlying how academic researchers select documents retrieved from online databases, consult or read, and cite documents during a research project. The participants are 15 of the the 25 agricultural economics users who participated in the original study of document-selection conducted in 1992. They were interviewed about subsequent decisions on document considered relevant and selected in 1992, as well as documents cited in their written products but not in the original searches. Of particular interest in this article are the decision criteria and rules they apply to documents as they progress through the project. The first study in 1992 emphasized the selection processes and resulted in a document selection model; the 1995 study concentrates on the reading and citing decisions. The model derived from this project shows document use as a decision-making process with decisions occuring at 3 points or stages during a research project: selecting, reading, and citing. It is an expansion pf the document selection model developed in the 1992 study, ientifies more criteria, and clarifies the criteria and rules that are in use at each stage. The follow-up study not only found that all but one of the criteria identified in selection re-occur in connection with reading and citing decisions, but also identified 14 new criteria. It also found that decision rules applied in selection descisions are applied throughout the project

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.2, S.98-114

0.029218795 = product of:
  0.05843759 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 3927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=3927,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3927, 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=3927)
    0.039094582 = product of:
      0.078189164 = sum of:
        0.078189164 = weight(_text_:network in 3927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078189164 = score(doc=3927,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 3927, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3927)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Automatic extraction of large-scale and accurate drug-disease pairs from the medical literature plays an important role for drug repurposing. However, many existing extraction methods are mainly in a supervised manner. It is costly and time-consuming to manually label drug-disease pairs datasets. There are many drug-disease pairs buried in free text. In this work, we first leverage a pattern-based method to automatically extract drug-disease pairs with treatment and inducement relationships from free text. Then, to reflect a drug-disease relation, a network embedding algorithm is proposed to calculate the degree of correlation of a drug-disease pair. In the experiments, we use the method to extract treatment and inducement drug-disease pairs from 27 million medical abstracts and titles available on PubMed. We extract 138,318 unique treatment pairs and 75,396 unique inducement pairs. Our algorithm achieves a precision of 0.912 and a recall of 0.898 in extracting the frequent treatment drug-disease pairs, and a precision of 0.923 and a recall of 0.833 in extracting the frequent inducement drug-disease pairs. Besides, our proposed information network embedding algorithm can efficiently reflect the degree of correlation of drug-disease pairs. Our algorithm can achieve a precision of 0.802, a recall of 0.783 in the fine-grained evaluation of extracting frequent pairs.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.11, S.2649-2661

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.

0.025716392 = product of:
  0.051432785 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 443, 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=443)
    0.032089777 = weight(_text_:research in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032089777 = score(doc=443,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 443, 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=443)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article proposes a model of document selection by real users of a bibliographic retrieval system. It reports on Part 1 of a longitudinal study of decision making on document use by academics during a actual research project. (Part 2 followed up the same users on how the selected documents were actually used in subsequent stages). The participants are 25 self-selected faculty and graduate students in Agricultural Economics. After a reference interview, the researcher conducted a search of DIALOG databases and prepared a printout. The users selected documents from this printout, They were asked to read and think aloud while selecting documents. There verbal reports were recorded and analyzed from a utiliy-theoretic perspective. The following model of the decision-making in the selection process emerged: document information lemenets (DIEs) in document records provide the information for judging the documents on 11 criteria (including topicality, orientation, quality, novelty, and authority); the criteria judgments are comninded in an assessment of document value along 5 dimensions (Epistemic, functional, conditional, social, and emotional values), leading to the use decision. This model accounts for the use of personal knowledge and decision strategies applied in the selection process. The model has implications for the design of an intelligent document selection assistant

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.2, S.115-133

0.025220342 = product of:
  0.050440684 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 276, 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=276)
    0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027229078 = score(doc=276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 276, 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=276)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Net neutrality is the focus of an important policy debate that is tied to technological innovation, economic development, and information access. We examine the role of human values in shaping the Net neutrality debate through a content analysis of testimonies from U.S. Senate and FCC hearings on Net neutrality. The analysis is based on a coding scheme that we developed based on a pilot study in which we used the Schwartz Value Inventory. We find that the policy debate surrounding Net neutrality revolves primarily around differences in the frequency of expression of the values of innovation and wealth, such that the proponents of Net neutrality more frequently invoke innovation, while the opponents of Net neutrality more frequently invoke wealth in their prepared testimonies. The paper provides a novel approach for examining the Net neutrality debate and sheds light on the connection between information policy and research on human values.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1360-1373

0.015720716 = product of:
  0.06288286 = sum of:
    0.06288286 = weight(_text_:research in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06288286 = score(doc=320,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on part of the results of a longitudinal study of information seeking behaviour and document selection and use by 15 faculty and graduate students, in the Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, Maryland University, undertaking a research project. This project is a follow up to a similar project undertaken in 1992 and the 15 participants in this study were among the 25 engaged in the 1992 study

Source

Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16 August 1996, Tampere, Finland. Ed.: P. Vakkari u.a

0.012835911 = product of:
  0.051343642 = sum of:
    0.051343642 = weight(_text_:research in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051343642 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports a qualitative study of the citing motivations of 12 agricultural economists (faculty and doctoral students), identifying several factors they considered in making citing decisions. Reports citing behaviour derived from a larger empirical, longitudinal study tracing document use during research projects and thus includes behaviour related to decisions both to cite and not to cite. An important finding is the existence of metalevel concerns that influence a decision to cite a document, in addition to situational factors related to its actual use during research

0.010050923 = product of:
  0.04020369 = sum of:
    0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04020369 = score(doc=4341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Eleven middle school children constructed hierarchical maps for two science categories selected from two Web directories, Yahooligans! and KidsClick! For each category, children constructed a pair of maps: one without links and one with links. Forty-tour maps were analyzed to identify similarities and differences. The structures of the maps were compared to the structures employed by the directories. Children were able to construct hierarchical maps and articulate the relationships among the concepts. At the global level (whole map), children's maps were not alike and did not match the structures of the Web directories. At the local levels (superordinate and subordinate), however, children shared similarities in the conceptual configurations, especially for the concrete concepts. For these concepts, substantial overlap was found between the children's structures and those employed in the directories. For the abstract concepts the configurations were diverse and did not match those in the directories. The findings of this study have impl!cations for design of systems that are more supportive of children's conceptual structures.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.12, S.1303-1315

0.007737203 = product of:
  0.030948812 = sum of:
    0.030948812 = weight(_text_:science in 7960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030948812 = score(doc=7960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 7960, 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=7960)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Integrating technologies - converging professions: proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH, 24-28 October 1993. Ed.: S. Bonzi

0.006838786 = product of:
  0.027355144 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 6714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=6714,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 6714, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6714)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.006770053 = product of:
  0.027080212 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 6561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=6561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 6561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6561)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.8, S.743-758

0.005802902 = product of:
  0.023211608 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 2796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=2796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2796, 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=2796)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.5, S.896-910

0.004835752 = product of:
  0.019343007 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 2376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=2376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2376, 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=2376)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1933-1947

0.004835752 = product of:
  0.019343007 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 2947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=2947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2947, 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=2947)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1550-1571

0.004835752 = product of:
  0.019343007 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 443, 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=443)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.1, S.45-57