Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × classification_ss:"06.30 / Bibliothekswesen / Dokumentationswesen: Allgemeines"
  • × subject_ss:"Digital divide"
  1. Mossberger, K.; Tolbert, C.J.; Stansbury, M.: Virtual inequality : beyond the digital divide (2003) 0.01
    0.005086894 = product of:
      0.015260682 = sum of:
        0.0072533954 = weight(_text_:und in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0072533954 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.06926147 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
        0.008007287 = weight(_text_:des in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008007287 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.06119363 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    BK
    05.20 / Kommunikation und Gesellschaft
    Classification
    05.20 / Kommunikation und Gesellschaft
    Footnote
    Anmerkung des Rezensenten in JASIST 55(2004) no.11, S.1024: "After reflecting an a requestfrom the authors of the reviewed book, 1 find that I did indeed err in my criticism of their methodology. The work's fault lies not with the methodology but rather with the discussion and explanation provided for the methodology. The authors do offer brief methodological explanation and justification in endnotes and appendices but are less clear in the book's text. I apologize to both the readers of the review and the authors for misinterpreting the text. For the authors' part, a methodology chapter would have been welcome. I am pleased to put right this misinterpretation that cast a shadow over an otherwise fine work."