Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013479257 = product of:
  0.03369814 = sum of:
    0.019548526 = weight(_text_:of in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019548526 = score(doc=4191,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.270-283

0.0049196044 = product of:
  0.024598021 = sum of:
    0.024598021 = weight(_text_:of in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024598021 = score(doc=4117,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2477-2489

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 1244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=1244,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1244, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1244)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

With the recent interest in socially created metadata as a potentially complementary resource for image description in relation to established tools such as thesauri and other forms of controlled vocabulary, questions remain about the quality and reuse value of these metadata. This study describes and examines a set of tags using quantitative and qualitative methods and assesses relationships among categories of image tags, tag assignment order, and users' perceptions of usefulness of index terms and user-contributed tags. The study found that tags provide much descriptive information about an image but that users also value and trust controlled vocabulary terms. The study found no correlation between tag length and assignment order, and tag length and its perceived usefulness. The findings of this study can contribute to the design of controlled vocabularies, indexing processes, and retrieval systems for images. In particular, the findings of the study can advance the understanding of image tagging practices, tag facet/category distributions, relative usefulness and importance of these categories to the user, and potential mechanisms for identifying useful terms.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.836-849

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 1631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=1631,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1631, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1631)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

To be effective and at the same time sustainable, a community data curation model needs to be aligned with the community's current data practices, including research project activities, data types, and perceptions of data quality. Based on a survey of members of the condensed matter physics (CMP) community gathered around the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, a large national laboratory, this article defines a model of CMP research project tasks consisting of 10 task constructs. In addition, the study develops a model of data quality perceptions by CMP scientists consisting of four data quality constructs. The paper also discusses relationships among the data quality perceptions, project roles, and demographic characteristics of CMP scientists. The findings of the study can inform the design of a CMP data curation model that is aligned and harmonized with the community's research work structure and data practices.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.246-263

0.00406935 = product of:
  0.02034675 = sum of:
    0.02034675 = weight(_text_:of in 4971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034675 = score(doc=4971,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4971, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4971)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The rapid accumulation of genome annotations, as well as their widespread reuse in clinical and scientific practice, poses new challenges to management of the quality of scientific data. This study contributes towards better understanding of scientists' perceptions of and priorities for data quality and data quality assurance skills needed in genome annotation. This study was guided by a previously developed general framework for assessment of data quality and by a taxonomy of data-quality (DQ) skills, and intended to define context-sensitive models of criteria for data quality and skills for genome annotation. Analysis of the results revealed that genomics scientists recognize specific sets of criteria for quality in the genome-annotation context. Seventeen data quality dimensions were reduced to 5-factor constructs, and 17 relevant skills were grouped into 4-factor constructs. The constructs defined by this study advance the understanding of data quality relationships and are an important contribution to data and information quality research. In addition, the resulting models can serve as valuable resources to genome data curators and administrators for developing data-curation policies and designing DQ-assurance strategies, processes, procedures, and infrastructure. The study's findings may also inform educators in developing data quality assurance curricula and training courses.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.195-207

0.0031922606 = product of:
  0.015961302 = sum of:
    0.015961302 = weight(_text_:of in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015961302 = score(doc=4373,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4373, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4373)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study examined how researchers used research information systems (RIMSs) and the relationships among researchers' seniority, discipline, and types and extent of RIMS use. Most researchers used RIMSs to discover research content. Fewer used RIMSs for sharing and promoting their research. Early career researchers were more frequent users of RIMSs than were associate and full professors. Likewise, assistant professors and postdocs exhibited a higher probability of using RIMSs to promote their research than did students and full professors. Humanities researchers were the least frequent users of RIMSs. Moreover, humanities scholars used RIMSs to evaluate research less than did scholars in other disciplines. The tasks of discovering papers, monitoring the literature, identifying potential collaborators, and promoting research were predictors of higher RIMS use. Researchers who engaged in promoting their research, evaluating research, or monitoring the literature showed a greater propensity to have a public RIMS profile. Furthermore, researchers mostly agreed that not being required, having no effect on their status, not being useful, or not being a norm were reasons for not having a public RIMS profile. Humanities scholars were also more likely than social scientists to agree that having a RIMS profile was not a norm in their fields.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.1035-1045

0.0031601768 = product of:
  0.015800884 = sum of:
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 1976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=1976,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1976, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1976)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

As the amount of research data management is growing, the use of identity metadata for discovering, linking, and citing research data is growing too. To support the awareness of different identifier systems and the comparison and selection of an identifier for a particular data management environment, there is need for a knowledge base. This article contributes to that goal and analyzes the data management and related literatures to develop a data identifier taxonomy. The taxonomy includes four categories (domain, entity types, activities, and quality dimensions). In addition, the article describes 14 identifiers referenced in the literature and analyzes them along the taxonomy.

0.0027367936 = product of:
  0.013683967 = sum of:
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 2469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=2469,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2469, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2469)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reviews theoretical and empirical studies on information credibility, with particular questions as to how scholars have conceptualized credibility, which is known as a multifaceted concept with underlying dimensions; how credibility has been operationalized and measured in empirical studies, especially in the web context; what are the important user characteristics that contribute to the variability of web credibility assessment; and how the process of web credibility assessment has been theorized. An agenda for future research on information credibility is also discussed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2399-2414