Search (212 results, page 1 of 11)

0.062191613 = product of:
  0.18657483 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 7552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=7552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 7552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7552)
    0.06437424 = weight(_text_:22 in 7552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437424 = score(doc=7552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 7552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7552)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Describes an experiment that examined the relationship between successful searching of CD-ROM databases by undergraduate students and various types of instruction provided by the library staff. The findings indicate that the only level of instruction that resulted in a significant difference was a live demonstration of searches.

Date

21. 3.2008 13:22:03

0.04397611 = product of:
  0.13192832 = sum of:
    0.08640887 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08640887 = score(doc=3838,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3769343 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
    0.04551946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04551946 = score(doc=3838,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this entry is to present and analyze the relationship between learning and information seeking. The analysis draws on research studies on information seeking set in educational contexts and is framed in theories of learning, mainly constructivism. Themes of the entry are based on five dimensions of the relationship between learning and information seeking: 1) seeking information for learning purposes; 2) learning information seeking; 3) teaching information seeking; 4) learning from information; and 5) reshaping conditions for information seeking and learning through information and communications technologies (ICTs). Conclusions are that the fields of learning and information seeking draw nearer to one another partly due to educational ideas based in constructivism and partly due to the development of digital tools that reshape conditions for learning in postmodern society. This development contributes to the transformation of the professional role of librarians, implying an emphasis on the pedagogical aspects of the profession. Future prospects for information seeking research and practice linked to learning may involve strengthened interests in the cognitive authority and expertise of information as well as information sharing through communicative interaction.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:22

0.04073353 = product of:
  0.24440119 = sum of:
    0.24440119 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24440119 = score(doc=5782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        1.0661311 = fieldWeight in 5782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=5782)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.032586828 = product of:
  0.19552095 = sum of:
    0.19552095 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19552095 = score(doc=5842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.8529049 = fieldWeight in 5842, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5842)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.031095807 = product of:
  0.093287416 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=189)
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 189, 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=189)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Almost 30 years ago, Taylor (1968) postulated that each information need moves along a continuum from the visceral need through the compromised need. The current study examines the final transition in this continuum: from formalized need (expressed in an explicit verbal statement) to compromised need (represented in the language of the retrieval system). This transition is primarily concerned with vocabulary: the searcher attempts to translate an explicit statement of need into a search term (or terms) that can be interpreted by the retrieval system. A few studies have empirically examined the match between the end-user searcher's formalized need and the compromised need (i.e., search terms). Markey (1984) compared the searcher's expressed topic (the formalized need, expressed in just a few words) and the search terms (the compromised need), and then went on to compare the search terms with the library catalog terms available for subject searching. She found that the search term matched or was a partial form of the expressed topic in 71% of the searches, and that over 75% of these searches matched a catalog term. Allen (1991) examined the relationship between logical reasoning ability and selection of search terms. He asked college students to read a magazine article (which could be seen as a very rich statement of the formalized need) and then to perform a search for articles on the same topic (expressing the compromised need).

Date

22. 3.2002 8:54:11

0.031095807 = product of:
  0.093287416 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2638, 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=2638)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In the context of online question-answering services, an intermediary clarifies the user's needs by eliciting additional information. This research proposes that these elicitations will depend on the type of question. In particular, this research explores the relationship between three constructs: question types, elicitations, and the fee that is paid for the answer. These relationships are explored for a few different question typologies, including a new kind of question type that we call Identity. It is found that the kinds of clarifications that intermediaries elicit depend on the type of question in systematic ways. A practical implication is that interactive question-answering services-whether human or automated-can be steered to focus attention on the kinds of clarification that are evidently most needed for that question type. Further, it is found that certain question types, as well as the number of elicitations, are associated with higher fees. This means that it may be possible to define a pricing structure for question-answering services based on objective and predictable characteristics of the question, which would help to establish a rational market for this type of information service. The newly introduced Identity question type was found to be especially reliable in predicting elicitations and fees.

Date

22. 1.2016 11:58:25

0.024285853 = product of:
  0.07285756 = sum of:
    0.05464977 = weight(_text_:relationship in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05464977 = score(doc=69,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.23839419 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
    0.018207785 = weight(_text_:22 in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018207785 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Classification

327.12 22

DDC

327.12 22

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.2, S.303-305 (L. Hayden): "Part history and part call to action, Covert and Overt examines the relationship between the disciplines of intelligence service and information science. The book is significant in that it captures both the rich history of partnership between the fields, and because it demonstrates clearly the incomplete nature of our understanding of that partnership. In the post-9/11 world, such understanding is increasingly important, as we struggle with the problem of transforming information into intelligence and intelligence into effective policy. Information science has an important role to play in meeting these challenges, but the sometimesambiguous nature of the field combined with similar uncertainties over what constitutes intelligence, makes any attempt at definitive answers problematic. The book is a collection of works from different contributors, in the words of one editor "not so much a created work as an aggregation" (p. 1). More than just an edited collection of papers, the book draws from the personal experiences of several prominent information scientists who also served as intelligence professionals from World War II onward. The result is a book that feels very personal and at times impassioned. The contributors attempt to shed light on an often-closed community of practice, a discipline that depends simultaneously on access to information and on secrecy. Intelligence, like information science, is also a discipline that finds itself increasingly attracted to and dependent upon technology, and an underlying question of the book is where and how technology benefits intelligence (as opposed to only masking more fundamental problems of process and analysis and providing little or no actual value).
This book is a successful and realistic examination of the current state of inquiry into the relationship between intelligence and information science, and does not flinch from the limits of this inquiry to date. The book can be viewed as a deliberate attempt to stimulate further interest in these studies, and serves as an excellent roadmap for future researchers (like this reviewer) who also have moved from intelligence service into information science. Many of the stories and studies in the book could easily provide fresh and vital avenues of research to new and veteran scholars. If there are limitations to the impact of the book, most must be viewed in the context of the lack of literature from which to draw. Contributions come from a variety of sources and although some new studies are included, for the most part, the chapters are not original to this publication. This results at times in a sense of the editors taking what they could get on the topic. The reader must determine whether this is viewed as a flaw or as reinforcement of the editors' conclusion that more research into the subject matter is important and necessary. It becomes a question of whether or not one wishes to answer the call. One interesting limitation, however, is the lack of a critical stance on the part of most of the contributors. The chapters tend to describe the relationship between intelligence and information science, but few question the nature of that relationship, the social construction of the two disciplines, or moral and ethical concerns associated with spying and information operations. In general, a reader is left with the impression that intelligence service is a good thing, and that information science as a discipline can both improve it as well as learn from it. Little insight is offered into the value and direction of intelligence in the 21 st century, or the impact that our technologies may have. One exception comes from Colin Burke who, in his chapter, "Intelligence Agencies, Librarians, and Information Scientists," touches on some of these issues with his claim that library and information science practitioners must "help bring the information advances from the intelligence communities to an industry that can be committed to distributing information at the lowest cost to the most people" (p. 112). Nevertheless, no serious questions regarding issues of control, power, or resistance are raised. Given recent debates over surveillance, privacy, and the erosion of civil liberties in the wake of 9-11, it would seem that this is an area of intelligence and information studies that also deserves attention. Covert and Overt is an excellent historical overview of the close relationship between intelligence and information science. The book is also intriguing and timely in its argument for further research and study into these areas. Despite the limitations of subject matter and the challenges that come with the disciplines that it explores, it is required reading for practitioners in either world who wish to gain a greater understanding of the operations of the other."

0.023042366 = product of:
  0.1382542 = sum of:
    0.1382542 = weight(_text_:relationship in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1382542 = score(doc=615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6030949 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A filtered online information service electronically filters or screen masses of information leaving behind targeted business information delivered electronically to a client. Describes tha major software packages available: Desktop Data's NewsEDGE, Individual Inc's First! and HeadsUP, Mainstream's Newscast and SandPoint Corporation's Hoover. Describes the information sources covered, the filtering techniques used, their relationship with SDI services, their marketing and relationship with information centre services. Examines questions to be taken into account when considering such services

0.021165766 = product of:
  0.1269946 = sum of:
    0.1269946 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1269946 = score(doc=5908,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.553978 = fieldWeight in 5908, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5908)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The present analysis looks at how scientists use the Internet for informal scientific communication. It investigates the relationship between several explanatory variables and Internet use in a cross-section of scientists from seven European countries and five academic disciplines (astronomy, chemistry, computer science, economics, and psychology). The analysis confirmed some of the results of previous U.S.-based analyses. In particular, it corroborated a positive relationship between research productivity and Internet use. The relationship was found to be nonlinear, with very productive (nonproductive) scientists using the Internet less (more) than would be expected according to their productivity. Also, being involved in collaborative R&D and having large networks of collaborators is associated with increased Internet use. In contrast to older studies, the analysis did not find any equalizing effect whereby higher Internet use rates help to overcome the problems of potentially disadvantaged researchers. Obviously, everybody who wants to stay at the forefront of research and keep upto-date with developments in their research fields has to use the Internet.

0.02016207 = product of:
  0.12097242 = sum of:
    0.12097242 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12097242 = score(doc=3375,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.527708 = fieldWeight in 3375, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3375)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The law librarian-customer reference interview is often a source of communications conflict stemming from the uncertainties of both parties: the customer is wary of the librarian and unsure of his own information needs, and the law librarian is unsure of her role because of the prohibition of dispensing legal advice at the reference desk. Intrapersonal and interpersonal communications literature suggests communication styles and behavious which foster a collaborative relationship between the librarian and the customer. Generally, the more emphathetic the librarian, the more pertinent information is found for the customer but the closer she comes to fostering a lawyer-client relationship

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 5755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=5755,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5755, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5755)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen. 57(1940), S.16-22

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 5761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=5761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5761)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Bücherei und Bildung. 22(1970), S.63-71

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Bibliothekar. 19(1965), S.15-22

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Reference librarian; no.22

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 5649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=5649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5649)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 4.2002 17:30:22

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 2504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=2504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2504)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

27.12.2015 18:22:38

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=3378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 3378, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3378)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The necessary and sufficient conditions for saying that X has a need for certain information are identified. It is concluded that an information need is a condition in which certain information contributes to the achievement of a genuine or legitimate information purpose. Information need is a relationship which obtains between information and information purpose; it is not a psychological state. Implications for research and practice are drawn from the conceptual analysis

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=6697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 6697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6697)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Presents Ranganathan's ideas on reference service and his division of the process into the following categories: initiation; general help to general modes; ready reference service; and long range reference service. Discusses the mechanism he developed for the analysis of reference service and refers to the stress he laid upon the humanistic side of reference service and its symbiotic relationship with the classification of knowledge. Argues that some of his ideas are still relevant although he was unable to foresee the revolution of reference service by information technology

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=800)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes the aims of the project to develop a National Information Infrastructure (NII) and its relationship with the Internet network. Looks at the implications of these developments for records managers and the information resources that they manage. Looks at ways that the development of the NII can be influenced through participation in the national agendas currently being set up