Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.057810657 = product of:
  0.11562131 = sum of:
    0.11562131 = sum of:
      0.08327908 = weight(_text_:maps in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08327908 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33534583 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059678096 = queryNorm
          0.2483379 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.032342233 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032342233 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059678096 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

ADEPT is a 5-year project whose goals are to develop, deploy, and evaluate inquiry learning capabilities for the Alexandria Digital Library, an extant digital library of primary sources in geography. We interviewed nine geography faculty members who teach undergraduate courses about their information seeking for research and teaching and their use of information resources in teaching. These data were supplemented by interviews with four faculty members from another ADEPT study about the nature of knowledge in geography. Among our key findings are that geography faculty are more likely to encounter useful teaching resources while seeking research resources than vice versa, although the influence goes in both directions. Their greatest information needs are for research data, maps, and images. They desire better searching by concept or theme, in addition to searching by location and place name. They make extensive use of their own research resources in their teaching. Among the implications for functionality and architecture of geographic digital libraries for educational use are that personal digital libraries are essential, because individual faculty members have personalized approaches to selecting, collecting, and organizing teaching resources. Digital library services for research and teaching should include the ability to import content from common office software and to store content in standard formats that can be exported to other applications. Digital library services can facilitate sharing among faculty but cannot overcome barriers such as intellectual property rights, access to proprietary research data, or the desire of individuals to maintain control over their own resources. Faculty use of primary and secondary resources needs to be better understood if we are to design successful digital libraries for research and teaching.

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22

0.02195189 = product of:
  0.04390378 = sum of:
    0.04390378 = product of:
      0.13171133 = sum of:
        0.13171133 = weight(_text_:objects in 3425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13171133 = score(doc=3425,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31719333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 3425, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3425)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the process of scientific research, many information objects are generated, all of which may remain valuable indefinitely. However, artifacts such as instrument data and associated calibration information may have little value in isolation; their meaning is derived from their relationships to each other. Individual artifacts are best represented as components of a life cycle that is specific to a scientific research domain or project. Current cataloging practices do not describe objects at a sufficient level of granularity nor do they offer the globally persistent identifiers necessary to discover and manage scholarly products with World Wide Web standards. The Open Archives Initiative's Object Reuse and Exchange data model (OAI-ORE) meets these requirements. We demonstrate a conceptual implementation of OAI-ORE to represent the scientific life cycles of embedded networked sensor applications in seismology and environmental sciences. By establishing relationships between publications, data, and contextual research information, we illustrate how to obtain a richer and more realistic view of scientific practices. That view can facilitate new forms of scientific research and learning. Our analysis is framed by studies of scientific practices in a large, multidisciplinary, multi-university science and engineering research center, the Center for Embedded Networked Sensing.

0.012417864 = product of:
  0.024835728 = sum of:
    0.024835728 = product of:
      0.074507184 = sum of:
        0.074507184 = weight(_text_:objects in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074507184 = score(doc=2785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31719333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Big Data" is on the covers of Science, Nature, the Economist, and Wired magazines, on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. But despite the media hyperbole, as Christine Borgman points out in this examination of data and scholarly research, having the right data is usually better than having more data; little data can be just as valuable as big data. In many cases, there are no data -- because relevant data don't exist, cannot be found, or are not available. Moreover, data sharing is difficult, incentives to do so are minimal, and data practices vary widely across disciplines. Borgman, an often-cited authority on scholarly communication, argues that data have no value or meaning in isolation; they exist within a knowledge infrastructure -- an ecology of people, practices, technologies, institutions, material objects, and relationships. After laying out the premises of her investigation -- six "provocations" meant to inspire discussion about the uses of data in scholarship -- Borgman offers case studies of data practices in the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities, and then considers the implications of her findings for scholarly practice and research policy. To manage and exploit data over the long term, Borgman argues, requires massive investment in knowledge infrastructures; at stake is the future of scholarship.

0.012128337 = product of:
  0.024256675 = sum of:
    0.024256675 = product of:
      0.04851335 = sum of:
        0.04851335 = weight(_text_:22 in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04851335 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5507, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.2, S.121-127

0.010106948 = product of:
  0.020213896 = sum of:
    0.020213896 = product of:
      0.040427793 = sum of:
        0.040427793 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040427793 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.010106948 = product of:
  0.020213896 = sum of:
    0.020213896 = product of:
      0.040427793 = sum of:
        0.040427793 = weight(_text_:22 in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040427793 = score(doc=5325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5325, 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=5325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 7.2019 11:58:22