Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004144049 = product of:
  0.05801668 = sum of:
    0.05801668 = weight(_text_:media in 1262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05801668 = score(doc=1262,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.43911293 = fieldWeight in 1262, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1262)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Understanding specific patterns or knowledge of self-disclosing health information could support public health surveillance and healthcare. This study aimed to develop an analytical framework to identify self-disclosing health information with unusual messages on web forums by leveraging advanced text-mining techniques. To demonstrate the performance of the proposed analytical framework, we conducted an experimental study on 2 major human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) forums in Taiwan. The experimental results show that the classification accuracy increased significantly (up to 83.83%) when using features selected by the information gain technique. The results also show the importance of adopting domain-specific features in analyzing unusual messages on web forums. This study has practical implications for the prevention and support of HIV/AIDS healthcare. For example, public health agencies can re-allocate resources and deliver services to people who need help via social media sites. In addition, individuals can also join a social media site to get better suggestions and support from each other.

0.0034186658 = product of:
  0.04786132 = sum of:
    0.04786132 = weight(_text_:media in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04786132 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.3622497 = fieldWeight in 5775, 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=5775)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Twitter is utilized by many, including professional businesses and organizations; however, there are very few studies on how other entities interact with these organizations in the Twittersphere. This article presents a study that investigates tweets related to 5 major library and information science (LIS) professional organizations in the United States. This study applies a systematic tweets analysis framework, including descriptive analytics, network analytics, and co-word analysis of hashtags. The findings shed light on user engagement with LIS professional organizations and the trending discussion topics on Twitter, which is valuable for enabling more successful social media use and greater influence.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 2218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=2218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 2218, 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=2218)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The quality of online health information for consumers has been a critical issue that concerns all stakeholders in healthcare. To gain an understanding of how quality is evaluated, this systematic review examined 165 articles in which researchers evaluated the quality of consumer-oriented health information on the web against predefined criteria. It was found that studies typically evaluated quality in relation to the substance and formality of content, as well as to the design of technological platforms. Attention to design, particularly interactivity, privacy, and social and cultural appropriateness is on the rise, which suggests the permeation of a user-centered perspective into the evaluation of health information systems, and a growing recognition of the need to study these systems from a social-technical perspective. Researchers used many preexisting instruments to facilitate evaluation of the formality of content; however, only a few were used in multiple studies, and their validity was questioned. The quality of content (i.e., accuracy and completeness) was always evaluated using proprietary instruments constructed based on medical guidelines or textbooks. The evaluation results revealed that the quality of health information varied across medical domains and across websites, and that the overall quality remained problematic. Future research is needed to examine the quality of user-generated content and to explore opportunities offered by emerging new media that can facilitate the consumer evaluation of health information.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 5071, 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=5071)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.

9.651475E-4 = product of:
  0.013512065 = sum of:
    0.013512065 = product of:
      0.02702413 = sum of:
        0.02702413 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02702413 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

8.1895484E-4 = product of:
  0.011465367 = sum of:
    0.011465367 = product of:
      0.022930734 = sum of:
        0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022930734 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

8.1895484E-4 = product of:
  0.011465367 = sum of:
    0.011465367 = product of:
      0.022930734 = sum of:
        0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022930734 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

6.8246236E-4 = product of:
  0.009554473 = sum of:
    0.009554473 = product of:
      0.019108946 = sum of:
        0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019108946 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 993, 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=993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:18:34

6.8246236E-4 = product of:
  0.009554473 = sum of:
    0.009554473 = product of:
      0.019108946 = sum of:
        0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019108946 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12