Search (1440 results, page 1 of 72)

0.104039215 = product of:
  0.20807843 = sum of:
    0.02515288 = weight(_text_:und in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02515288 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.18292555 = weight(_text_:having in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18292555 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.52866447 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Generally, open science practices are only slowly having an impact on mainstream archaeological practice. An exception is the open access to publications, which, together with open data and open methodologies may represent those practices most relevant for archaeological researchers. This article introduces a selection of archaeology projects that embrace and facilitate open science practices. Finally there will be a discussion of some of the questions and challenges the discipline is facing in its move towards an Open Archaeology.

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 72(2019) H.2-4, S.538-554

0.09682029 = product of:
  0.38728115 = sum of:
    0.38728115 = weight(_text_:judaic in 676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.38728115 = score(doc=676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.63683987 = queryWeight, product of:
          11.008321 = idf(docFreq=1, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.60812956 = fieldWeight in 676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          11.008321 = idf(docFreq=1, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=676)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Derivative bibliographic relationships are the primary relationships that exist among the members of a bibliographic family--the set of interrelated works where the relationships among entities express shared semantic or linguistic activity. Derivative bibliographic relationships exist between any new conception of a work and its original source (the progenitor), or its successor, or both. Discipline was a poor predictor of derivative relationships in prior studies of derivative bibliographic relationships. For the present study random samples of works were drawn from the catalogs of the Bobst Library, New York University, and the Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. Two sites were chosen to allow a test of the differences in collection development patterns between a university research library and a theological library. Bibliographic families were compiled for each work. Results indicate: 1) derivative bibliographic relationships exist for somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of theological works in this study; 2) there is little difference in proportions of derivative bibliographic relationships or in the size of bibliographic families between the two collections; 3) there is a positive correlation between the age of the progenitor work and the size of the bibliographic family); 4) there are significant gaps in coverage of theological bibliographic families online; 5) there is some evidence of differing patterns of derivation between Judaic and Islamic literature and Christian literature; 5) forms and genres are useful in a limited way for predicting the incidence of derivative relationships in theological literature

0.08002993 = product of:
  0.3201197 = sum of:
    0.3201197 = weight(_text_:having in 7984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3201197 = score(doc=7984,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.9251628 = fieldWeight in 7984, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7984)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There's a big gap between simply having an Internet connection and making good use of it. Here's how to make the leap

0.068597086 = product of:
  0.27438834 = sum of:
    0.27438834 = weight(_text_:having in 5893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27438834 = score(doc=5893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.7929967 = fieldWeight in 5893, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5893)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Papers pro and contra having been presented at the Annual Residential Seminar of the Cataloguing and Indexing Group, Winchester, July 1992, by Stuart James (as proposer) and Eric Hunter (as opposer)

0.06828035 = product of:
  0.1365607 = sum of:
    0.022232218 = weight(_text_:und in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022232218 = score(doc=818,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.17327337 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The social dynamics of alternative facts: why what you believe depends on who you know. Why should we care about having true beliefs? And why do demonstrably false beliefs persist and spread despite bad, even fatal, consequences for the people who hold them? Philosophers of science Cailin OConnor and James Weatherall argue that social factors, rather than individual psychology, are whats essential to understanding the spread and persistence of false beliefs. It might seem that theres an obvious reason that true beliefs matter: false beliefs will hurt you. But if thats right, then why is it (apparently) irrelevant to many people whether they believe true things or not? The Misinformation Age, written for a political era riven by fake news, alternative facts, and disputes over the validity of everything from climate change to the size of inauguration crowds, shows convincingly that what you believe depends on who you know. If social forces explain the persistence of false belief, we must understand how those forces work in order to fight misinformation effectively.

BK

05.20 Kommunikation und Gesellschaft

Classification

05.20 Kommunikation und Gesellschaft

0.06502452 = product of:
  0.13004903 = sum of:
    0.015720552 = weight(_text_:und in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015720552 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.12252277 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews Ranganathan's description of subject from mathematical angle. Ranganathan was highly influenced by Nineteenth Century mathematician George Cantor and he used the concept of infinity in developing an axiomatic interpretation of subject. Majority of library scientists interpreted the concept of subject merely as a term or descriptor or heading to include the same in cataloguing and subject indexing. Some library scientists interpreted subject on the basis of document, i.e. from the angle of the concept of aboutness or epistemological potential of the document etc. Some people explained subject from the viewpoint of social, cultural or socio-cultural process. Attempts were made to describe subject from epistemological viewpoint. But S R Ranganathan was the first to develop an axiomatic concept of subject on its own. He built up an independent idea of subject that is ubiquitously pervasive with human cognition process. To develop the basic foundation of subject, he used the mathematical concepts of infinity and infinitesimal and construed the set of subjects or universe of subjects as continuous infinite universe. The subject may also exist in extremely micro-form, which was termed as spot subject and analogized with point, which is dimensionless having only an existence. The influence of Twentieth Century physicist George Gamow on Ranganathan's thought has also been discussed.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu Leben und Werk von S.R. Ranganathan.

0.06467395 = product of:
  0.2586958 = sum of:
    0.2586958 = weight(_text_:having in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2586958 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.7476445 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes how journalists can become empowered by having access to online sources. However, there is a low rate of take-up, partly bacause of ignorance and partly because of cost, which is prohibitive to freelancers. Even where journalists do have access to online databases they seldom have the necessary searching skills. Highlights the need for training, and the desirability of having a professional online researcher on the team as backup

0.06467395 = product of:
  0.2586958 = sum of:
    0.2586958 = weight(_text_:having in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2586958 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.7476445 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although databases having highly structured records, with numerous searchable and displayable fields, including detailed subject indexing, are substantially more expensive to produce than databases having unstructured text, the increased cost is more than justified by the improved ease by which users can find information. Concludes that the increased costs can be recouped by the higher prices that the market will bear for these improved products

0.06467395 = product of:
  0.2586958 = sum of:
    0.2586958 = weight(_text_:having in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2586958 = score(doc=6501,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.7476445 = fieldWeight in 6501, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6501)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines the issue of outsourcing to obtain the shelf ready book from the aspect of public services and the viewpoint of a library administrator. Questions the necessity of having totally in house cataloguing. Highlights the advantages of having outside cataloguing and supplementary services. Outsourcing should not replace cataloguing departments but be dependent on circumstances. The main reasons for its implementation should be improved services rather than financial savings

0.05716424 = product of:
  0.22865696 = sum of:
    0.22865696 = weight(_text_:having in 6753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22865696 = score(doc=6753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.6608306 = fieldWeight in 6753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6753)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

SuperJANET, a document delivery project, is a now high speed version of JANET, the electronic network that links all UK universities, as well as having an increasing number of gateways into other networks all over the world. Describes pilot applications, how it will operate and long-term implications for publishers and libraries

0.056589708 = product of:
  0.22635883 = sum of:
    0.22635883 = weight(_text_:having in 6730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22635883 = score(doc=6730,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.65418893 = fieldWeight in 6730, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6730)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports the results of a recent study by Coopers and Lybrand Consulting (CLC). Revealed that the Internet and WWW are having a negative effect on television viewing while having a positive effect on the sale of print media. 3 groups of users were defined: communicators, information seekers, and browsers. Adds that another survey by FIND/SVP identified 4 groups of users: recreational consumers, occupational consumers, corporate users, and academic users. Spotlights several interesting sites, such as the Census Bureau and Economic Research Service, which are research-based. Mentions Toiletology 101, on WC maintenance and repair, and several online versions of print publications such as National Geographic, The Nation, Motor Trend Online, and The Washington Post

0.056589708 = product of:
  0.22635883 = sum of:
    0.22635883 = weight(_text_:having in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22635883 = score(doc=1452,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.65418893 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines the assumption that people want to be presented with as many different media as are possible in a given application. Reports on an exploratory study designed to assess the media preferences og the 'person on the street' when presented with the choice of 7 different media combinations to find out some unknown thing in a public space. Findings suggests that people do not always prefer to access as many different media as are available. There was a bias toward having some media combination that includes graphics, but there was also some bias against having information presented using sound in a public space

0.056589708 = product of:
  0.22635883 = sum of:
    0.22635883 = weight(_text_:having in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22635883 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.65418893 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

After studying the relations between two words(nouns) that constitute a compound term, the relation between corresponding concepts discussed. The impossibility of having a conjunction between two concepts that have no common feature causes inconvenience in the application of concept theory to information retrieval problems. Another kind of conjunctions, different from that by co-occurrence, is proposed and characteristics of this conjunction is studied. It revealed that one of new ones has the same character with colon combination in UDC. The possibility of having three kinds of conjunction including Wsterian concept conjunction is presented. It is also discussed that subdivisions can be replaced by new conjunctions

0.049545042 = product of:
  0.099090084 = sum of:
    0.019060155 = weight(_text_:und in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019060155 = score(doc=3862,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.14855097 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
    0.08002993 = weight(_text_:having in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08002993 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.2312907 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Human beings are information omnivores: we are constantly collecting, labeling, and organizing data. But today, the shift from the physical to the digital is mixing, burning, and ripping our lives apart. In the past, everything had its one place--the physical world demanded it--but now everything has its places: multiple categories, multiple shelves. Simply put, everything is suddenly miscellaneous. In Everything Is Miscellaneous, David Weinberger charts the new principles of digital order that are remaking business, education, politics, science, and culture. In his rollicking tour of the rise of the miscellaneous, he examines why the Dewey decimal system is stretched to the breaking point, how Rand McNally decides what information not to include in a physical map (and why Google Earth is winning that battle), how Staples stores emulate online shopping to increase sales, why your children's teachers will stop having them memorize facts, and how the shift to digital music stands as the model for the future in virtually every industry. Finally, he shows how by "going miscellaneous," anyone can reap rewards from the deluge of information in modern work and life. From A to Z, Everything Is Miscellaneous will completely reshape the way you think--and what you know--about the world.

Footnote

Weitere Rez. in: BuB 59(2007) H.10, S.750-751 (J. Plieninger: Vermischtes und noch mehr ...): "Dass dieses Buch den Bibliothekaren gewidmet ist, stimmt tröstlich. Denn auf den Punkt gebracht, bedeutet sein Inhalt für unseren Berufsstand: Es kommt nicht mehr auf Euch an! Die Kernthese, die der Autor, ein bekannter Publizist zum Internet und Mitglied einer Harvard-Institution, in diesem Essay überaus anregend und mit vielen Beispielen gespickt ausführt, lautet: Dem Informationsüberfluss durch elektronische Dokumente kann nur noch durch noch mehr Information begegnet werden. ..." Weitere Rez. in JASIST 60(2009) no.6, S.1299-1300 (G Thornton). Vgl. für Rezensionen auch: http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/reviews/.

0.04950569 = product of:
  0.19802275 = sum of:
    0.19802275 = weight(_text_:having in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19802275 = score(doc=373,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.57229614 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examined how researchers used research information systems (RIMSs) and the relationships among researchers' seniority, discipline, and types and extent of RIMS use. Most researchers used RIMSs to discover research content. Fewer used RIMSs for sharing and promoting their research. Early career researchers were more frequent users of RIMSs than were associate and full professors. Likewise, assistant professors and postdocs exhibited a higher probability of using RIMSs to promote their research than did students and full professors. Humanities researchers were the least frequent users of RIMSs. Moreover, humanities scholars used RIMSs to evaluate research less than did scholars in other disciplines. The tasks of discovering papers, monitoring the literature, identifying potential collaborators, and promoting research were predictors of higher RIMS use. Researchers who engaged in promoting their research, evaluating research, or monitoring the literature showed a greater propensity to have a public RIMS profile. Furthermore, researchers mostly agreed that not being required, having no effect on their status, not being useful, or not being a norm were reasons for not having a public RIMS profile. Humanities scholars were also more likely than social scientists to agree that having a RIMS profile was not a norm in their fields.

0.048505466 = product of:
  0.19402187 = sum of:
    0.19402187 = weight(_text_:having in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19402187 = score(doc=793,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.5607334 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Investigates whether a correlation exists between a UK university's academic excellence, as judged by its Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ratings, and the amount spent on its library. Considers both macro and micro levels, looking at institutions as a whole, and on a departmental level within the area of archaeology. As well as comparing all the higher education institutions, this group is broken down further, comparing the ratings and spending of the Russell and 94 Groups. There are correlations between the different groups of higher education institutions and RAE ratings. However, rather than high RAE ratings causing high library spending or high library spending causing high RAE ratings, it is likely that they are indirectly linked, good universities having both high RAE ratings and good libraries and poor universities having low RAE ratings and less money spent on libraries. Also describes how libraries in universities with archaeology departments allocate budgets.

0.048505466 = product of:
  0.19402187 = sum of:
    0.19402187 = weight(_text_:having in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19402187 = score(doc=1235,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.5607334 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A journal may be considered as having dimension-specific prestige when its score, based on a given journal ranking model, exceeds a threshold value. But a journal has multidimensional prestige only if it is a prestigious journal with respect to a number of dimensions-e.g., Institute for Scientific Information Impact Factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, and article influence score. The multidimensional prestige of influential journals takes into account the fact that several prestige indicators should be used for a distinct analysis of the impact of scholarly journals in a subject category. After having identified the multidimensionally influential journals, their prestige scores can be aggregated to produce a summary measure of multidimensional prestige for a subject category, which satisfies numerous properties. Using this measure of multidimensional prestige to rank subject categories, we have found the top scientific subject categories of Web of Knowledge as of 2010.

0.048505466 = product of:
  0.19402187 = sum of:
    0.19402187 = weight(_text_:having in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19402187 = score(doc=1448,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.5607334 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social question-and-answer (Q&A) sites are platforms where users can freely ask, share, and rate knowledge. For the sustainable growth of social Q&A sites, maintaining askers is as critical as maintaining answerers. Based on motivational affordances theory and self-determination theory, this study explores the influence of the design elements of social Q&A sites (i.e., upvotes, downvotes, edits, user profile, and comments) on the survival of new askers. In addition, the moderating effect of having an alternative experience is examined. Online data on 25,000 new askers from the top five Q&A sites in the Technology category of the Stack Exchange network are analyzed using logistic regression. The results show that the competency- and autonomy-related design features of social Q&A sites motivate new askers to continue participating. Surprisingly, having an alternative experience shows a negative moderating effect, implying that alternative experiences increase switching costs in the Stack Exchange network. This study provides valuable insights for administrators of social Q&A sites as well as academics.

0.047835782 = product of:
  0.095671564 = sum of:
    0.038507327 = weight(_text_:und in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038507327 = score(doc=33,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.30011827 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
    0.05716424 = weight(_text_:having in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05716424 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.16520765 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This book covers the key aspects of information architecture: core elements of information management - indexing, cataloguing and classification - organising and recording information in the digital environment. The book also focuses on design - specifically user-centred design: designing information systems that support the needs of users, by providing attractive, intuitive interfaces that support a range of information tasks and accommodate a range of individual resources. Key Features: (1) Is aimed at information professionals - existing texts in this emerging area are primarily aimed at web managers. (2) Is a straightforward introduction to the area. The Author: Dr Batley is a senior lecturer at the London Metropolitan University with teaching and research in the areas of organisation and retrieval of information and knowledge resources. Having completed a PhD on factors affecting the retrieval of information from picture databases in 1989, she worked as a subject librarian at the University of East London, before taking up her current post in 1996. Dr Batley is the author of another Chandos book, 'Classification in Theory and Practice'. Readership: The book is aimed at library and information practitioners; students of librarianship, information studies and information management. Contents: Introduction to information architecture Managing content Document description and content analysis Needs, task and resource analysis Indexing and ontologies Metadata Classification and taxonomy creation User-centred design and evaluation

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.2, S.70-74 (O. Oberhauser): "In unseren Breiten ist der Begriff "information architecture" (IA) noch nicht sehr geläufig. Zwar existiert bereits das Äquivalent "Informationsarchitektur - so weist nicht nur die deutschsprachige Wikipedia einen entsprechenden Eintrag auf, sondern man findet auch im Dreiländerkatalog mittels Titelwortsuche "ungefähr 12" Treffer dazu -, doch wer aus unseren Kreisen vermag den Begriffsumfang anzugeben, den Terminus zu erläutern bzw. abzugrenzen? Haben wir es mit einem Modebegriff zu tun? Mit einem Quasi-Synonym zu bestehenden Begriffen wie Informations- oder Wissensorganisation? Wurden gar Klassifikation bzw. Thesaurus - eben erst zu "Taxonomien" umgemodelt - schon wieder einmal neu erfunden oder entdeckt? Geht man dem Terminus "information architecture" nach, so erfährt man, vielleicht mit einem gewissen Erstaunen, zum Beispiel folgendes: - der Begriff wurde bereits 1975 von dem Architekten und Graphikdesigner Richard Wurman geprägt, der sich damit auf eine bessere und benutzerfreundlichere, von architektonischen Prinzipien inspirierte Gestaltung von Informationen bezog; - der Terminus setzte sich allerdings erst mit der Publikation des Buches der aus dem bibliothekarischen Kontext stammenden Autoren Rosenfeld und Morville (1998, soeben in dritter Auflage erschienen) sowie einer ASIS&T-Tagung zur Definition von IA (2000) in breiteren Kreisen durch; - spätestens mit der Publikation von "Information architects" hat Wurman auch diesen, eine Tätigkeit bzw. einen Beruf beschreibenden Terminus etabliert; - seit 2002 besteht das "Information Architecture Institute" (IIA), eine Non-Profit-Organisation zur Entwicklung und Förderung von IA, mit bereits über 1000 Mitgliedern in 60 Staaten und einer Website in acht Sprachen; - (amerikanische) Universitäten haben bereits mit der Etablierung von IA-Studiengängen bzw. Vertiefungsrichtungen (etwa im Fach Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft) begonnen.
Dem Begriff IA kann also nicht mehr ausgewichen werden. Was ist nun wirklich damit gemeint? Das IIA gibt folgende Definition: "1. Das strukturelle Design von gemeinschaftlich genutzten Informationsumgebungen. 2. Die Kunst und Wissenschaft Websites, Intranets, Online-Communitys [sic!] und Software zu strukturieren und Bezeichnungssysteme zu entwickeln, um Usability und die Auffindbarkeit von Inhalten herzustellen. 3. Eine sich herauskristallisierende Community von Praktikern, die Designund Architekturprinzipien in die digitale Landschaft einführen will." Bei Rosenfeld & Morville (Auflage 1998) heisst es - nicht unähnlich, aber doch nicht deckungsgleich -, IA sei: 1. The combination of organization, labeling, and navigation schemes within an information system. 2. The structural design of an information space to facilitate task completion and intuitive access to content. 3. The art and science of structuring and classifying web sites and intranets to help people find and manage information. 4. An emerging discipline and community of practice focusing on bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape. IA hat aber wohl nicht nur mit dem Design von Websites zu tun. Sue Batley, deren Buch sich im Gegensatz zu jenem der beiden amerikanischen Autoren nicht an Webdesigner, sondern an Informationsspezialisten wendet, betont im ersten Kapitel, dass es gegenwärtig (noch) keine allgemeingültige Definition für IA gebe; zuviel sei noch in Entwicklung bzw. im Fluss. Sie sieht, mit Blick auf die Zielgruppe der Informationsspezialisten, IA als eine Verbindung der Kernelemente des Informationsmanagements mit den Prinzipien des benutzerzentrierten Designs. Die Verbesserung von Auffindbarkeit ("increasing findability") gilt ihr hier als die wesentliche Aktivität. Als zentrale Begriffe in diesem Zusammenhang stellt Batley daher auch "indexes and indexing", "classification", "cataloguing" sowie "user-centered design" (von Informationssystemen) vor.
Im zweiten Kapitel, das ich für besonders lesenswert halte, beschäftigt sich die Autorin mit vier als "preliminaries" bezeichneten Stadien im Prozess des Designs von Informationssystemen: "information needs analysis" (welche Informationen werden benötigt), "task analysis" (für welche Aufgaben werden die Informationen benötigt), "resource analysis" (welche persönliche Kompetenzen bzw. praktischen Fähigkeiten stehen den präsumtiven Benutzern bereits zur Verfügung), "user modelling" (Segmentierung bzw. Kategorisierung der Anwender). In diesem Zusammenhang werden auch Begriffe wie "information audit" oder "needs assessment" erläutert sowie methodische Frage angerissen; zudem wird eine kleine Fallstudie als Beispiel präsentiert. Das folgende Kapitel ("Searching and finding") konzentriert sich auf die Informationssuche bzw. auf Retrievalaspekte. Dabei werden die Strategien des Suchens und Browsings im allgemeinen wie auch im besonderen (z.B. Boolesche Suchformulierungen, bibliothekarische Klassifikationen und Webtaxonomien) vorgestellt. Daran schliesst sich ein Kapitel über Dokumente und Dokumentbeschreibungen, in dem auf formale wie auch auf inhaltliche Aspekte der Dokumente (Metadaten vs. Thesauri) eingegangen wird. Kapitel 5 hat dann wieder einen höheren Neuigkeitswert für den bibliothekarischen Leser, da es hier um "interface and display design" geht. Begriffe wie Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle und mentale Modelle der Interaktion mit Computern (Metaphern) werden hier ebenso vorgestellt wie Interaktionsstile (z.B. Kommandosprachen vs. Formulare, Web-Kataloge) und grundsätzliche Designprinzipien (Bildschirmlayout, Navigation, Graphik etc.) Das darauf folgende kurze Kapitel "Management and maintenance" thematisiert Aspekte wie Content Management sowie organisatorische Fragen. In "Evaluation", dem abschliessenden Kapitel, geht es schliesslich um die Abschätzung von Wert und Qualität der durchgeführten "Informationsarchitektur", also um Wirksamkeit und Leistungsfähigkeit eines Systems (gemessen z.B. mittels bekannter Parameter wie Precision und Recall), aber auch um die damit erzielte Benutzerzufriedenheit.
Wie aus dieser kurzen Beschreibung ersichtlich wird, wartet das Buch mit zahlreichen interessanten Themen auf - oder reisst diese eben nur kurz an. Vielfach hätte man sich auch von einer Einführung mehr Detailreichtum erwartet, wobei natürlich nicht bekannt ist, welche Vorgaben die Autorin im Hinblick auf den Umfang des Buches zu beachten hatte. Meinem persönlichen Geschmack nach hätte der Band jedenfalls ruhig doppelt so dick sein dürfen, um mehr als nur einen kurzen Einstieg bieten zu können. Immerhin, so sei konzediert, enthält aber jedes Kapitel eine gute Auswahl an Hinweisen auf weiterführende Literatur. Wie auch schon ihrem vor zwei Jahren erschienenen Klassifikationsbuch9 ist Batley insgesamt eine aufgelockerte und gut lesbare Darstellung gelungen. Die eingangs gestellte Frage - Modebegriff? Quasi-Synonym? - beantwortet das Buch indes nicht wirklich. Die Verbindung der Kernelemente des Informationsmanagements mit den Prinzipien des benutzerzentrierten Designs erscheint mir eigentlich als nichts wesentlich Neues - hätte Informationsdesign nicht schon immer so sein sollen? Gerade nach der Lektüre des vorliegenden Buches werde ich den Verdacht nicht los, dass der Neologismus "Informationsarchitektur" mehr schick als inhaltsschwer ist. Man mag darin vielleicht den Versuch sehen, Vorhandenes aus einer anderen Perspektive zu betrachten oder auch das Bestreben, Inhalte und Themen aus dem Kernbereich der Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis für Interessenten ohne einschlägige Vorbildung schmackhaft und/oder verständlich aufzubereiten. Die Ambition, dies zu einer Tätigkeits- oder Berufsbezeichnung ("information architect") hochzustilisieren, kommt mir wenigstens so fragwürdig vor wie das seinerzeitige, unselige und immer noch nicht vollständig überwundene Auseinanderdividieren von Bibliothekaren und Dokumentaren."

0.045731388 = product of:
  0.18292555 = sum of:
    0.18292555 = weight(_text_:having in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18292555 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.52866447 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

GOLDHORs challenge to librarianship to find invariant, universal relationships among library variables is discussed. Scientific problem solving is seen within the context of KUHNian science, and research in librarianship is consiedered as not having the characteristics of KUHNian science. The work of librarianship is analyzed as primariliy a discussion of values, or post hoc rationalization of event. It is concluded that library problem solving will not succeed until fundamental problems are addressed.