Search (196 results, page 10 of 10)

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 5755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=5755,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5755, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5755)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Editor

Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=4496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

5.04483E-4 = product of:
  0.0070627616 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=338)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In 1995 a full time project worker was appointed to promote the Library Association bid to the Millennium Commission for funding for a project aimed at connecting all public libraries to the Information Superhighway, work with Project EARL (Electronic Access to Resources in Libraries), and participate in UKOLN public library research. Describes the 2 unsuccessful millennium bids, and work with EARL and UKOLN. Appendices include: a job description, details of 5 case studies looking at networking activities in public library authorities which were submitted as part of the 2nd millennium bis, examples of relevant articles published, and details of the 1st millennium bid

5.04483E-4 = product of:
  0.0070627616 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 2439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=2439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2439)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: Managing information 5(1998) no.4, S.46 (J. Bowman)

5.04483E-4 = product of:
  0.0070627616 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1902)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The C(K)onstance Hypertext system (KHS) is an elaborated example of an open hypertext system. Open hypertext systems combine heterogeneous resources and different hypertext applications such as email, text and image hypertexts with access to online data bases or other information resources. These hypertexts, to which heterogeneous users have access, grow steadily in size. This paper takes an object-oriented approach and proposes a rigorous typing of hypertext objexts to overcome the problems of open hypertext. The advantage of this typing is shown an an e-mail hypertext as a special application of the KHS system. KHS is written in Smalltalk and is being developed an UNIX-machines.

5.04483E-4 = product of:
  0.0070627616 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5998)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

4.8345356E-4 = product of:
  0.0067683496 = sum of:
    0.0067683496 = weight(_text_:information in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067683496 = score(doc=2417,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.

4.7796548E-4 = product of:
  0.0066915164 = sum of:
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

7. 2.2011 19:52:22

4.7796548E-4 = product of:
  0.0066915164 = sum of:
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4178, 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=4178)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 3.2018 17:30:43

4.7796548E-4 = product of:
  0.0066915164 = sum of:
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 2.2019 9:26:20

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

4.076838E-4 = product of:
  0.005707573 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

1.2. Metadaten - Metadaten sind ein entscheidender Faktor für die Archivierung, Publikation und Nachnutzung von Forschungsdaten. Nur hinreichend beschriebene Daten können durch Wissenschaftler verstanden und korrekt eingeordnet werden. Erst derartig beschriebene Daten lassen sich sinnvoll veröffentlichen und zitieren. Zusätzlich erlauben geeignete Metadaten das Browsen und Suchen in den Forschungsdaten. Deshalb ist die Definition und Verwendung geeigneter Metadaten-Modelle, die die Daten auf dem richtigen Level beschreiben, von außerordentlicher Bedeutung. Allerdings sind Metadaten, gerade im Bereich von Forschungsdaten, außerordentlich fach- und anwendungsspezifisch. Es gibt bisher nur wenige übergreifende Standards auf diesem Gebiet. Auch die in BW-eLabs vertretenen Disziplinen Materialwissenschaften und Technische Optik bauen auf sehr unterschiedlichen fachlichen Metadatenprofilen auf. Beide verwenden aber ein sehr vergleichbares Vorgehen bei der Beschreibung der kontextuellen Information, also dem Umfeld, in dem Versuchsdaten im Labor entstehen. Dieser Report beschreibt ein für das Projekt BW-eLabs geeignetes Metadaten-Modell für diese kontextuellen Informationen.
1.3. Beziehung zur Beschreibung statischer Daten - Neben dynamischen Daten arbeitet das Projekt BW-eLabs auch mit sogenannten "statischen Daten", unter denen vor allem Publikationen zu verstehen sind. Auch hierfür sind Metadaten vorzusehen. Das dafür notwendige Konzept beschreibt ein eigener Report. Publikationen enthalten heute vielfach bereits Verweise auf Datenobjekte bzw. Messwerte. Momentan oftmals noch als sogenannte "supporting information" von Verlagen an die Publikation angehängt, ist es ein Ziel von BW-eLabs (und anderen Projekten), die dabei auftretenden Beschränkungen hinsichtlich Umfang und Nachnutzbarkeit zu umgehen und die Daten nur noch über Verweise (z.B. anhand von Persistent Identifiern) aus der Publikation heraus zu verknüpfen. Damit werden die Datenobjekte eigenständige Entitäten, die einen eigenen Publikationsverlauf nehmen.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2436)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery. The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user's stated search criteria: identify-i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics select-i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user's needs obtain-i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity identify-i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc. clarify-i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known understand-i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2398)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

It may be jumping the gun a bit to review this publication before it is actually published, but we are nothing if not current here at Current Cites, so we will do it anyway (so sue us!). This publication-in-process is a joint effort of the Visual Resources Association and the Digital Library Federation. It aims to "provide guidelines for selecting, ordering, and formatting data used to populate catalog records" relating to cultural works. Although this work is far from finished (Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 9 are available, as well as front and back matter), the authors are making it available so pratictioners can use it and respond with information about how it can be improved to better aid their work. A stated goal is to publish it in print at some point in the future. Besides garnering support from the organizations named above as well as the Getty, the Mellon Foundation and others, the effort is being guided by experienced professionals at the top of their field. Get the point? If you're involved with creating metadata relating to any type of cultural object and/or images of such, this will need to be either on your bookshelf, or bookmarked in your browser, or both

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Die Studie untersucht die Usability der Homepage des Landtags NordrheinWestfalen. Es wird analysiert, wie benutzerfreundlich die Website ist, ob sie effektiv genutzt werden kann und ob die Inhalte der Site den Erwartungen der Benutzer entsprechen. Drei Evaluationsmethoden finden Einsatz: Ein Thinking-Aloud-Test, eine heuristische Evaluation und eine Availability-Untersuchung. Der hier eingesetzte Thinking-Aloud-Test ist ein Benutzertest, bei dem zwanzig Laien und zwanzig Information Professionals zuerst ihre Erwartungen an die Site äußern und dann anhand der Homepage, unter Beobachtung, Aufgaben bearbeiten. Anschließend geben sie anhand eines Fragebogens eine Beurteilung ab. Die heuristische Evaluation ist eine expertenzentrierte Methode. Usability-Experten stellen Checklisten auf, anhand derer eine Homepage untersucht wird. In dieser Studie finden drei Heuristiken Anwendung. Die Availability-Untersuchung der homepageeigenen Suchmaschine ist eine bibliothekarische Evaluationsmethode, die anhand einer Suche nach Webseiten, von denen bekannt ist, dass ihr Angebot aktiv ist, die Qualität der Suchmaschine hinsichtlich der Erreichbarkeit der Dokumente bestimmt. Die drei Methoden ergänzen einander und decken in ihrer Variation einen großen Pool an Usability-Fehlern auf. Die Ergebnisse: Die Benutzer vermissen auf der Homepage besonders Informationen über den Landeshaushalt, eine Liste der Mitarbeiter mit ihren Zuständigkeiten, Hintergrundinformationen zu aktuellen landespolitischen Themen und Diskussionsforen als Kommunikationsmöglichkeit. Im Durchschnitt liegen die Klickhäufigkeiten für das Lösen einer Aufgabe über denen, die für den kürzesten Weg benötigt werden. Die Abbruch-Quote aufgrund einer nicht lösbar erscheinenden Aufgabe beträgt bei 40 Probanden à sechs Aufgaben 13,33% (32 Abbrüche). In der Abschlussbefragung äußern sich die Testpersonen größtenteils zufrieden. Die Ausnahme stellt der Bereich "Navigation" dar. 40% halten die benötigten Links für schwer auffindbar, 45% aller Probanden wissen nicht jederzeit, an welcher Stelle sie sich befinden.