Search (117 results, page 1 of 6)

0.048185322 = product of:
  0.24092661 = sum of:
    0.24092661 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24092661 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.04015444 = product of:
  0.20077218 = sum of:
    0.20077218 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20077218 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

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

0.04015444 = product of:
  0.20077218 = sum of:
    0.20077218 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20077218 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.03872914 = product of:
  0.19364569 = sum of:
    0.19364569 = weight(_text_:views in 5765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19364569 = score(doc=5765,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.66312 = fieldWeight in 5765, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5765)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The literature on assigned indexing considers three possible viewpoints-the author's viewpoint as evidenced in the title, the users' viewpoint, and the indexer's viewpoint-and asks whether and which of those views should be reflected in an indexer's choice of terms to assign to an item. We study this question empirically, as opposed to normatively. Based on the literature that discusses whose viewpoints should be reflected, we construct a research model that includes those same three viewpoints as factors that might be influencing term assignment in actual practice. In the unique study design that we employ, the records of term assignments made by identified indexers in academic libraries are cross-referenced with the results of a survey that those same indexers completed on political views. Our results indicate that in our setting, variance in term assignment was best explained by indexers' personal political views.

0.032274283 = product of:
  0.16137141 = sum of:
    0.16137141 = weight(_text_:views in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16137141 = score(doc=312,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

TED talks are a popular internet forum where new ideas and research are presented by a wide variety of speakers. In this study, we investigated how the language used in TED talks influenced popularity and viewer ratings. We also investigated the differences in linguistic style and ratings of talks given by academics and non-academics. The transcripts of 1866 talks were analyzed using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program and eight language variables were correlated with number of views and viewer ratings. We found that talks with more analytic language received fewer views, while a greater use of the pronoun "I," positive emotion and social words was associated with more views. Talks with these linguistic characteristics received more emotional viewer ratings such as inspiring or courageous. When comparing talks by academics and non-academics, there was no difference in the overall popularity but viewers rated talks by academics as more fascinating, informative, and persuasive while non-academics received higher emotional ratings. The implications for understanding social influence processes are discussed.

0.02635184 = product of:
  0.1317592 = sum of:
    0.1317592 = weight(_text_:views in 5938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1317592 = score(doc=5938,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 5938, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5938)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Employers are increasingly using information and communication technologies to monitor employees. Such workplace surveillance is extensive in the United States, but its experience and potential consequences differ across groups based on gender. We thus sought to identify whether self-reported male and female employees differ in the extent to which they find the use of workplace cameras equipped with facial recognition technology (FRT) acceptable, and examine the role of privacy attitudes more generally in mediating views on workplace surveillance. Using data from a nationally representative survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, we find that women are much less likely than men to approve of the use of cameras using FRT in the workplace. We then further explore whether men and women think differently about privacy, and if perceptions of privacy moderate the relationship between gender and approval of workplace surveillance. Finally, we consider the implications of these findings for privacy and surveillance via embedded technologies, and how the consequences of surveillance and technologies like FRT may be gendered. Note: We recognize evaluations based on a binary definition of gender are invariably partial and exclusionary. As we note in our discussion of the study's limitations, we were constrained by the survey categories provided by Pew.

0.026086992 = product of:
  0.13043496 = sum of:
    0.13043496 = weight(_text_:views in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13043496 = score(doc=177,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed at understanding the use of paintings outside of an art-related context, in the English version of Wikipedia. Design/methodology/approach For this investigation, the authors identified 8,104 paintings used in 10,008 articles of the English Wikipedia edition. The authors manually coded the topic of the article in question, documented the number of monthly average views and identified the originating museum. They analysed the use of images based on frequency of use, frequency of view, associated topics and location. Early in the analysis three distinct perspectives emerged: the readers of the online encyclopaedia, the editors of the articles and the museum organisations providing the painting images (directly or indirectly). Findings Wikipedia is a widely used online information resource where images of paintings serve as visual reference to illustrate articles, notably also beyond an art-related topic and where no alternative image is available - as in the case of historic portraits. Editors used paintings as illustration of the work itself or art-related movement, but also as illustration of past events, as alternative to photographs, as well as to represent a concept or technique. Images have been used to illustrate up to 76 articles, evidencing the polysemic nature of paintings. The authors conclude that images of paintings are highly valuable information sources, also beyond an art-related context. They also find that Wikipedia is an important dissemination channel for museum collections. While art-related articles contain greater number of paintings, these receive less views than non-art-related articles containing fewer paintings. Readers of all topics, predominantly history, science and geographic articles, viewed art pieces outside of an art context. Painting images in Wikipedia receive a much larger online audience than the physical painting does when compared to the number of museum onsite visitors. The authors' results confirm the presence of a strong long-tail pattern in the frequency of image use (only 3% of painting images are used in a Wikipedia article), image view and museums represented, characteristic of network dynamics of the Internet.
Research limitations/implications While this is the first analysis of the complete collection of paintings in the English Wikipedia, the authors' results are conservative as many paintings are not identified as such in Wikidata, used for automatic harvesting. Tools to analyse image view specifically are not yet available and user privacy is highly protected, limiting the disaggregation of user data. This study serves to document a lack of diversity in image availability for global online consumption, favouring well-known Western objects. At the same time, the study evidences the need to diversify the use of images to reflect a more global perspective, particularly where paintings are used to represent concepts of techniques. Practical implications Museums wanting to increase visibility can target the reuse of their collections in non-art-related articles, which received 88% of all views in the authors' sample. Given the few museums collaborating with the Wikimedia Foundation and the apparent inefficiency resulting from leaving the use of paintings as illustration to the crowd, as only 3% of painting images are used, suggests further collaborative efforts to reposition museum content may be beneficial. Social implications This paper highlights the reach of Wikipedia as information source, where museum content can be positioned to reach a greater user group beyond the usual museum visitor, in turn increasing visual and digital literacy. Originality/value This is the first study that documents the frequency of use and views, the topical use and the originating institution of "all the paintings" in the English Wikipedia edition.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 5880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=5880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 5880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5880)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

"Discipline" is commonly used to denote particular areas of knowledge, research and education. Yet, the concept is often not very well defined or even explicitly discussed when used in knowledge organisation and related fields. The aim of this article is to encourage and facilitate further reflections on academic disciplines, while at the same time offering insights on how this elusive concept might be understood. An overarching argument is that "discipline" should foremost be understood in relation to institutional and organisational features, and this is what distinguishes it from related terms such as, field, domain or topic. The etymology and history of the concept are reviewed along with a discussion of attempts to define and conceptualise disciplines. Insights are offered on how disciplines might be studied. Regardless of our views of disciplines, either as inherently out-dated constructs or as important features of a well-functioning academia, it is concluded that further precision or care in explicating the concept is needed.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The modern classification of mathematical subjects occurred within the larger framework of library classification, a project receiving sustained attention in the period from 1870 to the present. The early work of the library cataloguers was carried out against the background of a broad nineteenth-century interest in the classification of knowledge. We explore different views during this period concerning the position of mathematics in the overall scheme of knowledge, the scope of mathematics and the internal organization of the different parts of mathematics. We examine how mathematical books were classified, from the most general level down to the level of particular subject areas in analysis. The focus is on the Library of Congress Classification in its various iterations from 1905 to the present. The article ends with an examination of the Mathematics Subject Classification Scheme employed today by reviewing services Mathematical Reviews in the United States and Zentralblatt in Germany.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=632)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Contrary to a popular belief of lawyers having the most strict perception of law, law professionals actually strongly skew toward more favorable views of digital sharing. According to our qualitative study, relying on in-depth interviews with 50 Harvard lawyers, digital piracy is quite acceptable. It is considered fair, especially among friends and for noncommercial purposes. We argue that this not only can indicate that the existing law is becoming outdated because of its inability to be enforced, but also that ethically it is not corresponding to what is considered fair, good service, or being societally beneficial. The common perception of relying on a fixed price for digital content is eroding. We show that on the verges of business, society, and law, there is a potential for the new paradigm of digital commons to emerge.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01918199 = product of:
  0.095909946 = sum of:
    0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095909946 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 5811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=5811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 5811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5811)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Research activities related to social informatics (SI) are expanding, even as community fragmentation, topical dispersion, and methodological diversity continue to increase. Specifically, the different understandings of SI in regional communities have strong impacts, and each has a different history, methodological grounding, and often a different thematic focus. The aim of this article is to connect three selected perspectives on SI-intellectual (regional schools of thought), methodological, and thematic-and introduce a comparative framework for understanding SI that includes all known approaches. Thus, the article draws from a thematic and methodological grounding of research across schools of thought, along with definitions that rely on the extension and intension of the notion of SI. The article is built on a paralogy of views and pluralism typical of postmodern science. Because SI is forced to continually reform its research focus, due to the rapid development of information and communication technology, social changes and ideologies that surround computerization and informatization, the presented perspective maintains a high degree of flexibility, without the need to constantly redefine the boundaries, as is typical in modern science. This approach may support further developments in promoting and understanding SI worldwide.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to understand the nature of citations and metrics in the larger system of knowledge production involving universities, funding agencies, publishers, and indexing and data analytic services. Design/methodology/approach First, the normative and social constructivist views of citations are reviewed to be understood as co-existing conditions. Second, metrics are examined through the processes of commensuration by tracing the meanings of metrics embedded in various kinds of documents and contexts. Third, the steering effects of citations and metrics on knowledge production are discussed. Finally, the conclusion addresses questions pertaining to the validity and legitimacy of citations as data and their implications for knowledge production and the conception of information. Findings The normative view of citations is understood as an ideal speech situation; the social constructivist view of citation is recognised in the system of knowledge production where citing motivations are influenced by epistemic, social and political factors. When organisational performances are prioritised and generate system imperatives, motives of competition become dominant in shaping citing behaviour, which can deviate from the norms and values in the academic lifeworld. As a result, citations and metrics become a non-linguistic steering medium rather than evidence of research quality and impact. Originality/value This paper contributes to the understanding of the nature of citations and metrics and their implications for the conception of information and knowledge production.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the scientific backbone from the citation network of a research domain. Existing approaches ignored the semantic relationships between the citing and cited publications, resulting in several adverse issues, in terms of coherence of main paths and coverage of significant studies. This paper advocated the semantic main path network analysis approach to alleviate these issues based on citation function analysis. A wide variety of SciBERT-based deep learning models were designed for identifying citation functions. Semantic citation networks were built by either including important citations, for example, extension, motivation, usage and similarity, or excluding incidental citations like background and future work. Semantic main path network was built by merging the top-K main paths extracted from various time slices of semantic citation network. In addition, a three-way framework was proposed for the quantitative evaluation of main path analysis results. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis on three research areas of computational linguistics demonstrated that, compared to semantics-agnostic counterparts, different types of semantic main path networks provide complementary views of scientific knowledge flows. Combining them together, we obtained a more precise and comprehensive picture of domain evolution and uncover more coherent development pathways between scientific ideas.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Knowledge management (KM) is increasingly important to the field of information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D). Yet, scant literature has addressed KM in the ICT4D context. This study takes an important step toward addressing this gap by conceptualizing KM in the context of ICT4D based on the people-process-technology perspective. To elicit KM factors most relevant to ICT4D, a Delphi study is conducted with a panel of experts representing three key stakeholder groups (beneficiaries, partners, and designers) with cumulative experience of leading ICT4D projects in 25 countries. Based on the Delphi study findings, 16 factors relevant to KM in ICT4D are synthesized. A multi-stakeholder engagement framework for KM in ICT4D and an activity checklist are proposed. The study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing insights into the differing views of stakeholders related to KM practices in ICT4D projects. Practitioners may find the framework and checklist useful in coordinating and managing KM in ICT4D projects. As development initiatives become increasingly knowledge focused, the study calls upon researchers for more enquiry in this progressive area of study.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article examines genre as knowledge organization. Genres are fluid and historically changing categories, and there are different views about the scope and membership of specific genres. The literature generally agrees that genre is a matter of discrimination and taxonomy, and that it is concerned with organising things into recognisable classes, existing as part of the relationship between texts and readers. Genre can be thought of as a sorting mechanism, and genres are not only a matter of codes and conventions but also call into play systems of use and social institutions. This article explores the history of genre analysis across a broad range of disciplines, including literary studies, rhetorical and social action studies, and English for academic and professional purposes. It considers genre theory as a framework for librarianship and knowledge organization and explores the use of genre within librarianship and knowledge organization. Finally, the article discusses the Library of Congress Genre/Forms Terms for Library and Archival Materials which, itself an evolving and changing standard, offers a step towards standardisation regarding genre terms and the scope of genre categories.

0.016441705 = product of:
  0.08220852 = sum of:
    0.08220852 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08220852 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, 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=4156)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.016441705 = product of:
  0.08220852 = sum of:
    0.08220852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08220852 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1203, 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=1203)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2023, H.10, S.22-24