Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008514896 = product of:
  0.02128724 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=2885,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
    0.014208881 = product of:
      0.028417762 = sum of:
        0.028417762 = weight(_text_:information in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028417762 = score(doc=2885,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The study sets out to explore the factors that influence the evaluation of information and the judgments made in the process of finding useful information in web search contexts. Based on a diary study of 2 assigned tasks to search on Google and Google Scholar, factor analysis identified the core constructs of content, relevance, scope, and style, as well as informational and system "ease of use" as influencing the judgment that useful information had been found. Differences were found in the participants' evaluation of information across the search tasks on Google and on Google Scholar when identified by the factors related to both content and ease of use. The findings from this study suggest how searchers might critically evaluate information, and the study identifies a relation between the user's involvement in the information interaction and the influences of the perceived system ease of use and information design.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.824-840

Type

a

0.007189882 = product of:
  0.017974705 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3316,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
    0.011163551 = product of:
      0.022327103 = sum of:
        0.022327103 = weight(_text_:information in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022327103 = score(doc=3316,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article contributes to the growing body of research that explores the significance of context in health information behavior. Specifically, through the lens of trust judgments, it demonstrates that gender is a determinant of the information evaluation process. A questionnaire-based survey collected data from adults regarding the factors that influence their judgment of the trustworthiness of online health information. Both men and women identified credibility, recommendation, ease of use, and brand as being of importance in their trust judgments. However, women also take into account style, while men eschew this for familiarity. In addition, men appear to be more concerned with the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the information, the ease with which they can access it, and its familiarity, whereas women demonstrate greater interest in cognition, such as the ease with which they can read and understand the information. These gender differences are consistent with the demographic data, which suggest that: women consult more types of sources than men; men are more likely to be searching with respect to a long-standing health complaint; and, women are more likely than men to use tablets in their health information seeking. Recommendations for further research to better inform practice are offered.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.36-47

Type

a

0.004303226 = product of:
  0.010758064 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3597,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3597, 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=3597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1201-1211

Type

a

0.0019264851 = product of:
  0.009632425 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=4541,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight limits to the dominant model of social inclusion under which UK public libraries operate, to analyse how and to what extent processes of socio-cultural exclusion emerge in the subject representation and discoverability of "non-dominant" resources in public library OPACs, and to consider folksonomy as a solution to any issues raised. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first develops a critique of the dominant model of "inclusion" within UK public libraries, drawing on feminist and critical theories of identity. It then considers how this critique overlaps with and offers fresh insights into major debates within subject indexing, and develops a theoretical rationale for considering the potential of folksonomy to intervene in more inclusive subject-indexing design. A user-based critical interpretive methodology which understands OPACs as texts open to multiple interpretations is developed, and a comparative reading of standard OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy is undertaken to evaluate the discoverability and subject representation of LGBTQ and ethnic minority resources. Findings - LibraryThing folksonomy offers benefits over LCSH subject indexing in the discoverability and representation of LGBTQ resources. However, the folksonomy is dominated by US taggers, and this impacts on the tagging of ethnic minority resources. Folksonomy, like traditional indexing, is found to contain its own biases in worldview and subject representation. Originality/value - The importance of subject indexing in developing inclusive library services is highlighted and a new method for evaluating OPACs is developed.

Type

a