Search (1202 results, page 2 of 61)

0.05489262 = product of:
  0.21957047 = sum of:
    0.21957047 = weight(_text_:holding in 3719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21957047 = score(doc=3719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.5112703 = fieldWeight in 3719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3719)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the equivalence relationship as presented by Barbara B. Tillett in her taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Tillett's definition of equivalence comprised of two parts, first, that equivalence holds between exacts copies of bibliographic items or documents, and second, that it may hold between an original item and a reproduction, if the intellectual content and authorship are presented. It is proposed that this definition is too restrictive, excluding relationships among items that may, based an contexts of use, act as equivalent. Further, it is suggested that a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships be constructed as holding between document representations as opposed to documents themselves. A revised definition of equivalence is offered in which equivalence relationships may hold among document representations in which one or more document properties described in the representations are shared. One advantage of this revision is that it subsumes Tillett's shared characteristic relationship, simplifying the taxonomy.

0.05489262 = product of:
  0.21957047 = sum of:
    0.21957047 = weight(_text_:holding in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21957047 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.5112703 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) is the central public funding organization for academic research in Germany. It is thus comparable to a research council or a national research foundation. According to its statutes, DFG's mandate is to serve science and the arts in all fields by supporting research projects carried out at universities and public research institutions in Germany, to promote cooperation between researchers, and to forge and support links between German academic science, industry and partners in foreign countries. In the fulfillment of its tasks, the DFG pays special attention to the education and support of young scientists and scholars. DFG's mandate and operations follow the principle of territoriality. This means that its funding activities are restricted, with very few exceptions, to individuals and institutions with permanent addresses in Germany. Fellowships are granted for work in other countries, but most fellowship programs are restricted to German citizens, with a few exceptions for permanent residents of Germany holding foreign passports.

0.05489262 = product of:
  0.21957047 = sum of:
    0.21957047 = weight(_text_:holding in 2971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21957047 = score(doc=2971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.5112703 = fieldWeight in 2971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2971)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Despite quantities of popular rhetoric, democratic theory holds an aposiopetic place within library and information science (LIS) in both senses of that word: It is both in a stasis holding to basic ideas outlined 200 years ago and also a silence largely maintained. A review of a number of state-of-the-literature reviews make the case that it has not been systematically explored or applied, and most LIS work elides the questions democratic theory raises. It is time to emend this and account for a relevant intellectual source which can more firmly ground LIS practice and research in normative terms. Toward that end, three productive wellsprings of democratic theory are reviewed: Jürgen Habermas, Sheldon Wolin, and those working on democratic education (Amy Gutmann, Richard Brosio, Maxine Greene). The article concludes with an outline of some possible LIS questions and approaches drawn from these democratic theorists.

0.05489262 = product of:
  0.21957047 = sum of:
    0.21957047 = weight(_text_:holding in 822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21957047 = score(doc=822,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.5112703 = fieldWeight in 822, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=822)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Library and Information Science (LIS) is an interdisciplinary domain concerned with the creation, management, and uses of information in all its forms. Emerging from parallel developments in libraries and in information science, the field now encompasses diverse activities that are part of the information transfer cycle-such as the creation, instantiation, communication, acquisition, organization, management, regulation, preservation, distribution, and use of information. This entry traces the development of LIS from its beginnings in thinking about libraries and the growth of library science as a field. It then explores the nature of information science and the interweaving paths of the two-which eventually encountered the field of communications. It concludes with current trends, especially the difficulties that come from holding together what is in fact a vast interdisciplinary area.

0.05489262 = product of:
  0.21957047 = sum of:
    0.21957047 = weight(_text_:holding in 645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21957047 = score(doc=645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.5112703 = fieldWeight in 645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=645)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems can have linguistic and conceptual formations of social oppression and exclusion. It is information science's role to be vigilant in perpetuating seditious discourses which end up reaffirming offenses, prejudices and humiliations to certain groups of people, especially those labeled as marginalized, that is, who are not part of the dominant group holding social power. In the quest for this diversity, this study reviews the literature of the area on how thesauri can become more inclusive and on the role of semantic warrant, specific to the philosophical, literary and cultural warrant. This research highlights the need to review thesaurus construction models so that they can be more open and inclusive to the cultural diversity of today's society, formed by social actors who claim their spaces and representations. To this end, guidelines are suggested for the construction of thesauri procedures that allow cultural warrant receptivity.

0.05489262 = product of:
  0.21957047 = sum of:
    0.21957047 = weight(_text_:holding in 1703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21957047 = score(doc=1703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.5112703 = fieldWeight in 1703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1703)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Cataloging principles and objectives guide the formation of cataloging rules governing the organization of information within the library catalog, as well as the function of the catalog itself. Changes in technologies wrought by the internet and the web have been the driving forces behind shifting cataloging practice and reconfigurations of cataloging rules. Modern cataloging principles and objectives started in 1841 with the creation of Panizzi's 91 Rules for the British Museum and gained momentum with Charles Cutter's Rules for Descriptive Cataloging (1904). The first Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) was adopted in 1961, holding their place through such codifications as AACR and AACR2 in the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions accelerated starting in 2003 with the three original FR models. The Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017 acted as a catalyst for the evolution of principles and objectives culminating in the creation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2013.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 5468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=5468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 5468, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5468)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines the reasons why existing management practices designed to cope with paper-based data objects appear to be inadequate for managing digital data objects (DDOs). The research described suggests the need for a reassessment of the way we view long-term access to DDOs. There is a need for a shift in emphasis which embraces the fluid nature of such objects and addresses the multifaceted issues involved in achieving such access. It would appear from the findings of this research that a conceptual framework needs to be developed which addresses a range of elements. The research achieved this by examining the issues facing stakeholders involved in this field; examining the need for and structure of a new generic conceptual framework, the super-metadata framework; identifying and discussing the issues central to the development of such a framework; and justifying the feasibility through the creation of an interactive cost model and stakeholder evaluation. The wider conceptual justification for such a framework is discussed and this involves an examination of the "public good" argument for the long-term retention of DDOs and the importance of selection in the management process. The paper concludes by considering the benefits to practitioners and the role they might play in testing the feasibility of such a framework. The paper also suggests possible avenues researchers may wish to consider to develop further the management of this field. (Note: This paper is derived from the author's Loughborough University phD thesis, "Managing long-term access to digital data objects: a metadata approach", written while holding a research studentship funded by the Department of Information Science.)

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The second part of a two-part paper reports the preliminary conclusions derived from the pathfinder phase of a study devoted to a reassessment of the information needs of academic researchers. Proceeding from the notion that long-established research information needs may not have remained wholly unaffected by the changing realities of the knowledge society, this exploration of researchers' current information requirements and information seeking practices has been undertaken with a special emphasis on examining the validity of anything and everything we have customarily been holding true as to the information component of academic research work. The groundwork for the investigation has been laid down in a pilot project of seven in-depth critical incident method-based information needs interviews with faculty at the University of Haifa (Israel). The qualitative data thus obtained as to researchers' information needs, how they go about meeting these needs, and the barriers they encounter in the process have been analysed within the comprehensive framework proposed by Nicholas for a systematic description of information needs. The ensuing evaluation reported here considers 11 aspects of the present-day academic researcher's information needs. With the first part of the paper focusing on the insights gained into the two major aspects of subject and function, the subsequent discussion of the remaining aspects rounds out this portrayal of research information needs.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 344, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=344)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie in Paris - the interactive museum for science and technology which opened to the public in 1986 hosts a multimedia library holding some 330,000 documents. The small collection of CD-ROMs integrated into the library's collection since the end of 1991 (''Public section'' and the "Didacthèque") have been expanded in October 1996. Presently more than 800 titles are available for viewing on site or for circulation. After the brief background of CD-ROM installation and collections in French public libraries this paper discusses the problems of describing CD-ROMs in the online catalog. It mostly concentrates on the collection for circulation. The rules of bibliographic description correspond to the draft of the French national standard, which follows the ISBD(ER) principles. The format used for cataloguing in the library is UNIMARC and the automated system - GEAC GLIS. Cataloguing has been done locally since the national bibliographic description of electronic documents was not available at the time when the first collection was constituted. Since April 1997 the "Bibliographie nationale française" on CD-ROM provides the description for electronic documents whose downloading is now possible. This paper analyses the benefits of downloading of bibliographic records for ER and concludes that some local adaptation (updating) is necessary for satisfying end user needs

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports the preliminary conclusions derived from the initial, pathfinder phase of a study devoted to a re-assessment of the information needs of academic researchers. This exploration of researchers' current information requirements and information seeking practices has been undertaken with a special emphasis on examining the validity of anything and everything we have customarily been holding true as to the information component of academic research work. The groundwork for the investigation has been laid down in a pilot project of seven in-depth critical incident method based information needs interviews with faculty at the University of Haifa (Israel). The qualitative data thus obtained as to researchers' information needs, how they go about meeting these needs, and the barriers they encounter in the process have been analysed within the comprehensive framework proposed for a systematic description of information needs. The ensuing evaluation considers 11 aspects of the present-day academic researcher's information needs: subject, function, nature, intellectual level, viewpoint, quantity, quality/authority, date/currency, speed of delivery, place of publication/origin, and processing/packaging.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The well-documented limitations of journal impact factor rankings and perceptual ratings, the evolving scholarly communication system, the open-access movement, and increasing globalization are some reasons that prompted an examination of journal value rather than just impact. Using a single, specialized journal established in 1960, about education for the Information professions, the author discusses the fall from citation grace of the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS) in terms of impact factor and declining subscriptions. Journal evaluation studies in Library and Information Science based on subjective ratings are used to show the high rank of JELIS during the same period (1984-2004) and explain why impact factors and perceptual ratings either singly or jointly are inadequate measures for understanding the value of specialized, scholarly journals such as JELIS. This case study was also a search for bibliometric measures of journal value. Three measures, namely journal attraction power, author associativity, and journal consumption power, were selected; two of them were redefined as journal measures of affinity (the proportion of foreign authors), associativity (the amount of collaboration), and calculated as objective indicators of journal value. The affinity and associativity for JELIS calculated for 1984, 1994, 2004, and consumption calculated for 1985 and 1994 show a holding pattern; however, they also reveal interesting dimensions for future study. Journal value is multidimensional and citations do not capture all the facets; costs, benefits, and measures for informative and scientific value must be distinguished and developed in a fuller model of journal value.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Most existing knowledge organization systems (KOS) are based on disciplines. However, as research is increasingly multidisciplinary, scholars need tools allowing them to explore relations between phenomena throughout the whole spectrum of knowledge. We focus on the dependence relationship, holding between one phenomenon and those at lower integrative levels on which it depends for its existence, like alpinism on mountains, and mountains on rocks. This relationship was first described by D.J. Foskett in the context of CRG's work towards a non-disciplinary scheme. We discuss its possible status and representation in three kinds of KOS: thesauri, classification schemes, and ontologies. In thesaural structures, dependence could be one of the subtypes of associative relationships (RT) which have been wished to enrich their semantic functions. In classification, it could act together with hierarchy as a structuring principle, providing a way of connecting and sorting main classes based on integrative levels. In ontologies, it could be defined as a dependsOn direct slot, expressing the fact that through it a class does not inherit all properties of the other class on which it depends. We argue that providing search interfaces with cross-disciplinary links of this kind can give users more adequate tools to examine the recorded knowledge through creative paths overcoming some limitations of its canonical segmentation into disciplines.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 3795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=3795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 3795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3795)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research draws on longitudinal network data from an online community to examine patterns of users' behavior and social interaction, and infer the processes underpinning dynamics of system use. The online community represents a prototypical example of a complex evolving social network in which connections between users are established over time by online messages. We study the evolution of a variety of properties since the inception of the system, including how users create, reciprocate, and deepen relationships with one another, variations in users' gregariousness and popularity, reachability and typical distances among users, and the degree of local redundancy in the system. Results indicate that the system is a small world characterized by the emergence, in its early stages, of a hub-dominated structure with heterogeneity in users' behavior. We investigate whether hubs are responsible for holding the system together and facilitating information flow, examine first-mover advantages underpinning users' ability to rise to system prominence, and uncover gender differences in users' gregariousness, popularity, and local redundancy. We discuss the implications of the results for research on system use and evolving social networks, and for a host of applications, including information diffusion, communities of practice, and the security and robustness of information systems.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=983,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 983, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=983)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Science Data Repositories (SDRs) have been recognized as both critical to science, and undergoing a fundamental change. A websample study was conducted of 100 SDRs. Information on the websites and from administrators of the SDRs was reviewed to determine salient characteristics of the SDRs, which were used to classify SDRs into groups using a combination of cluster analysis and logistic regression. Characteristics of the SDRs were explored for their role in determining groupings and for their relationship to the success of SDRs. Four of these characteristics were identified as important for further investigation: whether the SDR was supported with grants and contracts, whether support comes from multiple sponsors, what the holding size of the SDR is and whether a preservation policy exists for the SDR. An inferential framework for understanding SDR composition, guided by observations, characteristic collection and refinement and subsequent analysis on elements of group membership, is discussed. The development of SDRs is further examined from a business standpoint, and in comparison to its most similar form, institutional repositories. Because this work identifies important characteristics of SDRs and which characteristics potentially impact the sustainability and success of SDRs, it is expected to be helpful to SDRs.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 2078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=2078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 2078, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2078)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Domain ontologies very rarely model verbs as relations holding between concepts. However, the role of the verb as a central connecting element between concepts is undeniable. Verbs specify the interaction between the participants of some action or event by expressing relations between them. In parallel, it can be argued from an ontology engineering point of view that verbs express a relation between two classes that specify domain and range. The work described here is concerned with relation extraction for ontology extension along these lines. We describe a system (RelExt) that is capable of automatically identifying highly relevant triples (pairs of concepts connected by a relation) over concepts from an existing ontology. RelExt works by extracting relevant verbs and their grammatical arguments (i.e. terms) from a domain-specific text collection and computing corresponding relations through a combination of linguistic and statistical processing. The paper includes a detailed description of the system architecture and evaluation results on a constructed benchmark. RelExt has been developed in the context of the SmartWeb project, which aims at providing intelligent information services via mobile broadband devices on the FIFA World Cup that will be hosted in Germany in 2006. Such services include location based navigational information as well as question answering in the football domain.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As the Internet becomes ubiquitous, it has advanced to more closely represent aspects of the real world. Due to this trend, researchers in various disciplines have become interested in studying relationships between real-world phenomena and their virtual representations. One such area of emerging research seeks to study relationships between real-world and virtual activism of social movement organization (SMOs). In particular, SMOs holding extreme social perspectives are often studied due to their tendency to have robust virtual presences to circumvent real-world social barriers preventing information dissemination. However, many previous studies have been limited in scope because they utilize manual data-collection and analysis methods. They also often have failed to consider the real-world aspects of groups that partake in virtual activism. We utilize automated data-collection and analysis methods to identify significant relationships between aspects of SMO virtual communities and their respective real-world locations and ideological perspectives. Our results also demonstrate that the interconnectedness of SMO virtual communities is affected specifically by aspects of the real world. These observations provide insight into the behaviors of SMOs within virtual environments, suggesting that the virtual communities of SMOs are strongly affected by aspects of the real world.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 2530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=2530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 2530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2530)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A theory of "megacitation" is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human-coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment-based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine-learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and "libcitations" (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 2987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=2987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 2987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2987)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The general purpose of this study is to assess the amount of catalogers' familiarity with Resource Description and Access (RDA) and their readiness for acceptance of these rules and the effect of training on this issue. The methodology of the presented research is a survey study using a descriptive-analytic approach. In this research, the familiarity of 49 catalogers, working for the Cataloging In Publication (CIP) department at the National Library and Archive of Iran with RDA was monitored before and after a training session through a questionnaire. It was specifically prepared for measuring catalogers' familiarity with, and acceptance of, RDA and also highlighting the self-identified and actual levels of this familiarity and acceptance. The results show that before training, catalogers' self-identified familiarity with RDA was higher than the average level. But after the training session, both self-identified and actual familiarity raised dramatically. Furthermore, the significant difference between the research population's features and self-identified, actual familiarity and the rules' acceptance rate among catalogers was examined. In this study, it was confirmed that there is a significant difference between self-stated and actual familiarity of catalogers regarding RDA. According to the results, M.A. catalogers have a self-identified familiarity higher than B.A. catalogers. It was also confirmed that the actual familiarity of catalogers with an M.A. degree before training is higher than catalogers holding a B.A.

0.04574384 = product of:
  0.18297537 = sum of:
    0.18297537 = weight(_text_:holding in 3037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18297537 = score(doc=3037,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42946064 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.055683833 = queryNorm
        0.42605853 = fieldWeight in 3037, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.7124834 = idf(docFreq=53, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3037)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.