Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Fang, Z."
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Fang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, F.; Dong, W.: How does family support influence digital immigrants' extended use of smartphones? : an empirical study based on IT identity theory (2023) 0.00
    2.848226E-4 = product of:
      0.004272339 = sum of:
        0.004272339 = product of:
          0.008544678 = sum of:
            0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008544678 = score(doc=1091,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    The number of digital immigrants using new technologies such as smartphones is rapidly increasing. However, digital immigrants still struggle to actually use and benefit from digital technology. This article examines the role of family support in digital immigrants' use of more smartphone functions based on information technology (IT) identity theory. We surveyed 241 digital immigrants who owned smartphones and used structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) for analysis. We examined the contributing roles of family support for digital immigrants' IT identity and extended use behavior. Family cognitive and emotional support can shape IT identity by improving the smartphone-related experience. Family support has a positive impact on digital immigrants' self-efficacy, embeddedness, perceived usefulness, and perceived enjoyment of using a smartphone. Positive usage experience can also facilitate the establishment of IT identity, which is a key predictor of smartphone use behavior. A strong IT identity also promotes extended use behavior. We discuss the contributions and implications of our findings.
    Content
    Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on ICT4D and intersections with the information field. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24747.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.12, S.1463-1481
  2. Fang, Z.; Costas, R.; Tian, W.; Wang, X.; Wouters, P.: How is science clicked on Twitter? : click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications (2021) 0.00
    2.3255666E-4 = product of:
      0.0034883497 = sum of:
        0.0034883497 = product of:
          0.0069766995 = sum of:
            0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0069766995 = score(doc=265,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    To provide some context for the potential engagement behavior of Twitter users around science, this article investigates how Bitly short links to scientific publications embedded in scholarly Twitter mentions are clicked on Twitter. Based on the click metrics of over 1.1 million Bitly short links referring to Web of Science (WoS) publications, our results show that around 49.5% of them were not clicked by Twitter users. For those Bitly short links with clicks from Twitter, the majority of their Twitter clicks accumulated within a short period of time after they were first tweeted. Bitly short links to the publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities tend to attract more clicks from Twitter over other subject fields. This article also assesses the extent to which Twitter clicks are correlated with some other impact indicators. Twitter clicks are weakly correlated with scholarly impact indicators (WoS citations and Mendeley readers), but moderately correlated to other Twitter engagement indicators (total retweets and total likes). In light of these results, we highlight the importance of paying more attention to the click metrics of URLs in scholarly Twitter mentions, to improve our understanding about the more effective dissemination and reception of science information on Twitter.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.7, S.918-932
  3. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: Facing the volatility of tweets in altmetric research (2022) 0.00
    1.9733087E-4 = product of:
      0.002959963 = sum of:
        0.002959963 = product of:
          0.005919926 = sum of:
            0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.005919926 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.8, S.1192-1195
  4. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: ¬The stability of Twitter metrics : a study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications (2020) 0.00
    1.6444239E-4 = product of:
      0.0024666358 = sum of:
        0.0024666358 = product of:
          0.0049332716 = sum of:
            0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0049332716 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 35, 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=35)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.12, S.1455-1469
  5. Zhang, L.; Gou, Z.; Fang, Z.; Sivertsen, G.; Huang, Y.: Who tweets scientific publications? : a large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research (2023) 0.00
    1.6444239E-4 = product of:
      0.0024666358 = sum of:
        0.0024666358 = product of:
          0.0049332716 = sum of:
            0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0049332716 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.13, S.1485-1497
  6. Tian, W.; Cai, R.; Fang, Z.; Geng, Y.; Wang, X.; Hu, Z.: Understanding co-corresponding authorship : a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview (2024) 0.00
    1.6444239E-4 = product of:
      0.0024666358 = sum of:
        0.0024666358 = product of:
          0.0049332716 = sum of:
            0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0049332716 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.1, S.3-23