Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.059789024 = product of:
  0.11957805 = sum of:
    0.03920956 = weight(_text_:world in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03920956 = score(doc=727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
    0.052102152 = weight(_text_:wide in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052102152 = score(doc=727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
    0.028266339 = weight(_text_:web in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028266339 = score(doc=727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

0.01668601 = product of:
  0.050058026 = sum of:
    0.03920956 = weight(_text_:world in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03920956 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
    0.010848465 = product of:
      0.032545395 = sum of:
        0.032545395 = weight(_text_:22 in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032545395 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 42, 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=42)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The rapidly increasing volume and variety of electronic or digitized information sources and their accessibility worldwide, have brought to the surface new issues concerning intellectual property, the complexity of the related legal questions and application of legislative measures in real world situations. Attemps to define 'intellectual property' from different points of view; considers the different types with different 'strengths' of protection, and the underlying objectives of such protection. Discusses copyright and international treaties on intellectual property, what is protected and for how long, the concept of fair use and the role of organizations concerned with reproduction rights. Presents a brief overview of the intellectual property questions relating to electronic media: machine readable databases, the information resources on the Internet, and images; electrocopying and downloading of texts and images from networks; and the special nature and copyright problems of multimedia. Also considers moral rights and the need for and feasibility of establishing Electronic Copyright Management System (ECMS)

Source

Information studies. 3(1997) no.1, S.5-22

0.015402969 = product of:
  0.092417814 = sum of:
    0.092417814 = weight(_text_:world in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092417814 = score(doc=2259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.60057354 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Internet world and document delivery world international 94: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference, London, May 1994

0.013324881 = product of:
  0.07994928 = sum of:
    0.07994928 = weight(_text_:web in 4656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07994928 = score(doc=4656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4656)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Object

Web of Science

0.010891545 = product of:
  0.065349266 = sum of:
    0.065349266 = weight(_text_:world in 7244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065349266 = score(doc=7244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.42466965 = fieldWeight in 7244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7244)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Considers virtual reality and the applications of virtual reality that information workers will need to assimilate in the next decade or so. Considers possible applications in the library and information world, for example the extension of the notion of the virtual library using virtual reality

0.01087972 = product of:
  0.065278314 = sum of:
    0.065278314 = weight(_text_:web in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065278314 = score(doc=838,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of LexiURL as a Web intelligence tool for collecting and analysing links to digital libraries, focusing specifically on the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH). Design/methodology/approach - The Web intelligence techniques in this study are a combination of link analysis (web structure mining), web server log file analysis (web usage mining), and text analysis (web content mining), utilizing the power of commercial search engines and drawing upon the information science fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. LexiURL is a computer program designed to calculate summary statistics for lists of links or URLs. Its output is a series of standard reports, for example listing and counting all of the different domain names in the data. Findings - Link data, when analysed together with user transaction log files (i.e. Web referring domains) can provide insights into who is using a digital library and when, and who could be using the digital library if they are "surfing" a particular part of the Web; in this case any site that is linked to or colinked with the NeLH. This study found that the NeLH was embedded in a multifaceted Web context, including many governmental, educational, commercial and organisational sites, with the most interesting being sites from the.edu domain, representing American Universities. Not many links directed to the NeLH were followed on September 25, 2005 (the date of the log file analysis and link extraction analysis), which means that users who access the digital library have been arriving at the site via only a few select links, bookmarks and search engine searches, or non-electronic sources. Originality/value - A number of studies concerning digital library users have been carried out using log file analysis as a research tool. Log files focus on real-time user transactions; while LexiURL can be used to extract links and colinks associated with a digital library's growing Web network. This Web network is not recognized often enough, and can be a useful indication of where potential users are surfing, even if they have not yet specifically visited the NeLH site.

0.007236411 = product of:
  0.043418463 = sum of:
    0.043418463 = weight(_text_:wide in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043418463 = score(doc=3671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The study of information needs has long be acknowlegded as one of the most important factors in the design of information services but has been hampered by the severe problem of designing user studies that will reliably measure them. Reviews the literature of previous research in this field, concluding that time and money are the chief constraints on information seeking behaviour. Describes a new observational technique for identifying the information needs of users and reports results of a small scale experiment to test the methodology. The observational technique involves the researcher being with the subject continuously throughout the day and observing their actions. The behaviour recorded was any action taken in order to answer a question. A small scale study was undertaken of 3 academics from the Psychology Department, University of Strathclyde, using the observational technique. The preferred technique of all the academics was to carry out their own research, followed by consultation with other individuals. One lecturer was a significantly heavier user of electronic media than the other two. The preferred physical locations of the information sources were personal collections and the University Library. One lecturer consistently used a wide range of sources while the other two strongly preferred to use personal contacts. Informal sources were found to be twice as popular as formal sources. A follow up questionnaire survey examined the possibility that previous training in the use of the library could explain the differences in the use of electronic information sources but results were found to be negative. Concludes that the new research tool developed for this type of study is both robust and likely to yield reliable information about user information needs

0.0047110566 = product of:
  0.028266339 = sum of:
    0.028266339 = weight(_text_:web in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028266339 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The literature of the evaluation of Internet search engines is reviewed. Although there have been many studies, there has been little consistency in the way such studies have been carried out. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that recall is virtually impossible to calculate in the fast changing Internet environment, and therefore the traditional Cranfield type of evaluation is not usually possible. A variety of alternative evaluation methods has been suggested to overcome this difficulty. The authors recommend that a standardised set of tools is developed for the evaluation of web search engines so that, in future, comparisons can be made between search engines more effectively, and that variations in performance of any given search engine over time can be tracked. The paper itself does not provide such a standard set of tools, but it investigates the issues and makes preliminary recommendations of the types of tools needed

0.0047110566 = product of:
  0.028266339 = sum of:
    0.028266339 = weight(_text_:web in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028266339 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The recently developed h-index has been applied to the literature produced by senior British-based academics in librarianship and information science. The majority of those evaluated currently hold senior positions in UK information science and librarianship departments; however, a small number of staff in other departments and retired "founding fathers" were analyzed as well. The analysis was carried out using the Web of Science (Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) for the years from 1992 to October 2005, and included both secondauthored papers and self-citations. The top-ranking British information scientist, Peter Willett, has an h-index of 31. However, it was found that Eugene Garfield, the founder of modern citation studies, has an even higher h-index of 36. These results support other studies suggesting that the h-index is a useful tool in the armory of bibliometrics.

0.004356618 = product of:
  0.026139706 = sum of:
    0.026139706 = weight(_text_:world in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026139706 = score(doc=5603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.

0.0039258804 = product of:
  0.023555283 = sum of:
    0.023555283 = weight(_text_:web in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023555283 = score(doc=2374,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.

0.0024107702 = product of:
  0.0144646205 = sum of:
    0.0144646205 = product of:
      0.04339386 = sum of:
        0.04339386 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04339386 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.0024107702 = product of:
  0.0144646205 = sum of:
    0.0144646205 = product of:
      0.04339386 = sum of:
        0.04339386 = weight(_text_:22 in 7670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04339386 = score(doc=7670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7670)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.6, S.407-421

0.0018080776 = product of:
  0.010848465 = sum of:
    0.010848465 = product of:
      0.032545395 = sum of:
        0.032545395 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032545395 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

0.0015204087 = product of:
  0.009122452 = sum of:
    0.009122452 = product of:
      0.027367353 = sum of:
        0.027367353 = weight(_text_:29 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027367353 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

4. 7.2011 19:39:29

0.0015067314 = product of:
  0.009040388 = sum of:
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13