Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0069067483 = product of:
  0.09669447 = sum of:
    0.09669447 = weight(_text_:media in 4597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09669447 = score(doc=4597,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.7318549 = fieldWeight in 4597, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4597)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0048838085 = product of:
  0.068373315 = sum of:
    0.068373315 = weight(_text_:media in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068373315 = score(doc=722,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.51749957 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

There is very little qualitative data on what impact the Internet is having on information seeking in the workplace. Using open-ended interviews, questionnaires and observation, the impact of the Internet on the British Media was assessed. The focus was largely on newspapers, with The Guardian being covered in some depth. Over 300 journalists and media librarians were surveyed. It was found that amongst traditional journalists use was light. Poor access to the Internet - and good access to other information resources - were largely the reasons for this. Of the journalists it was mainly the older and more senior journalists and the New Media journalists who used the Internet. Librarians were also significant users. Searching the World Wide Web was the principal Internet activity and use was generally conservative in character. Newspapers and official sites were favoured, and searches were mainly of a fact-checking nature. Email was used on a very limited scale and was not regarded as a serious journalistic tool. Non-users were partly put off by the Internet's potential for overloading them with information and its reputation for producing information of suspect quality. Users generally dismissed these concerns, dealing with potential overload and quality problems largely by using authoritative sites and exploiting the lower quality data where it was needed. Where the Internet has been used it has not been at the expense of other information sources or communication channels, but online hosts seem to be at most risk in the future.

0.0034533741 = product of:
  0.048347235 = sum of:
    0.048347235 = weight(_text_:media in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048347235 = score(doc=735,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.36592746 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Virtually all UK and US newspapers and the vast majority of regional and even local titles are now represented on the web. Indeed, the Yahoo news and media directory lists no less than 114 UK newspapers online (as of November 1998). Broadcasters from the BBC and Sky downwards, and all the famous news agencies (Press Association, Reuters etc.) also boast comprehensive Internet services. With such an array of sources available, the future of mass access to the Internet, possibly via TV terminals, suggests that more and more people may soon opt for this medium to receive the bulk of their news information. This paper gives an overview of the characteristics of the medium illustrated with examples of how these are being used to both facilitate and enhance the content and dissemination of the news product. These characteristics include hyperlinking to external information sources, providing archive access to past reports, reader interactivity and other features not possible to incorporate into more passive media such as the hardcopy newspaper. From a survey of UK and US news providers it is clear that American newspapers are exploiting the advantages of web information dissemination to a far greater extent than their British counterparts, with the notable exception of The Electronic Telegraph. UK broadcasters, however, generally appear to have adapted better to the new medium, with the BBC rivaling CNN in its depth and extent of news coverage, use of links and other elements.

0.0034186658 = product of:
  0.04786132 = sum of:
    0.04786132 = weight(_text_:media in 696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04786132 = score(doc=696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.3622497 = fieldWeight in 696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=696)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Nowadays, end-users have quick and direct access to massive amount of information available on the Net. However, this information is unorganized expecting users to be able to identify and evaluate it in accordance with their information needs. Subject based information Gateways SBIG, organized collections of networked information, provide users with a catalogue of authoritative Internet resources, which can be searched and/ or browsed. This paper provides an evaluation of one such gateway - the Art, Design, Architecture & Media Gateway ADAM. It provides information on who these users are, how often they use the service, what their reasons for use are, which search methods and services they prefer and what are the advantages and disadvantages of an online information service.

0.002930285 = product of:
  0.04102399 = sum of:
    0.04102399 = weight(_text_:media in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04102399 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.31049973 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

0.002762699 = product of:
  0.038677786 = sum of:
    0.038677786 = weight(_text_:media in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038677786 = score(doc=662,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.29274195 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The CIBER group at University College London are currently evaluating a distance education initiative funded by the Department of Health, providing in-service training to NHS staff via DiTV and satellite to PC systems. This paper aims to provide the context for the project by outlining a short history of distance education, describing the media used in providing remote education, and to review research literature on achievement, attitude, barriers to learning and learner characteristics. Design/methodology/approach - Literature review, with particular, although not exclusive, emphasis on health. Findings - The literature shows little difference in achievement between distance and traditional learners, although using a variety of media, both to deliver pedagogic material and to facilitate communication, does seem to enhance learning. Similarly, attitudinal studies appear to show that the greater number of channels offered, the more positive students are about their experiences. With regard to barriers to completing courses, the main problems appear to be family or work obligations. Research limitations/implications - The research work this review seeks to consider is examining "on-demand" showing of filmed lectures via a DiTV system. The literature on DiTV applications research, however, is dominated by studies of simultaneous viewing by on-site and remote students, rather than "on-demand". Practical implications - Current research being carried out by the authors should enhance the findings accrued by the literature, by exploring the impact of "on-demand" video material, delivered by DiTV - something no previous research appears to have examined. Originality/value - Discusses different electronic systems and their exploitation for distance education, and cross-references these with several aspects evaluated in the literature: achievement, attitude, barriers to take-up or success, to provide a holistic picture hitherto missing from the literature.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0013649247 = product of:
  0.019108946 = sum of:
    0.019108946 = product of:
      0.03821789 = sum of:
        0.03821789 = weight(_text_:22 in 5941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03821789 = score(doc=5941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5941, 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=5941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

26. 2.2008 19:22:51

8.1895484E-4 = product of:
  0.011465367 = sum of:
    0.011465367 = product of:
      0.022930734 = sum of:
        0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022930734 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

23. 2.2009 17:22:41

6.8246236E-4 = product of:
  0.009554473 = sum of:
    0.009554473 = product of:
      0.019108946 = sum of:
        0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019108946 = score(doc=228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 228, 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=228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22