Search (1905 results, page 1 of 96)

0.052839838 = product of:
  0.21135935 = sum of:
    0.21135935 = weight(_text_:helping in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21135935 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.539506 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study investigates the motivational factors affecting the quantity and quality of voluntary knowledge contribution in online Q&A communities. Although previous studies focus on knowledge contribution quantity, this study regards quantity and quality as two important, yet distinct, aspects of knowledge contribution. Drawing on self-determination theory, this study proposes that five motivational factors, categorized along the extrinsic-intrinsic spectrum of motivation, have differential effects on knowledge contribution quantity versus quality in the context of online Q&A communities. An online survey with 367 participants was conducted in a leading online Q&A community to test the research model. Results show that rewards in the reputation system, learning, knowledge self-efficacy, and enjoy helping stand out as important motivations. Furthermore, rewards in the reputation system, as a manifestation of the external regulation, is more effective in facilitating the knowledge contribution quantity than quality. Knowledge self-efficacy, as a manifestation of intrinsic motivation, is more strongly related to knowledge contribution quality, whereas the other intrinsic motivation, enjoy helping, is more strongly associated with knowledge contribution quantity. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

0.05230877 = product of:
  0.20923509 = sum of:
    0.20923509 = weight(_text_:helping in 2400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20923509 = score(doc=2400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.5340837 = fieldWeight in 2400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2400)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses and illustrates through examples how meaningful or deep learning can be supported through well-structured presentation of material, through giving learners schemas they can use to organize knowledge in their minds, and through helping learners to understand knowledge organization principles they can use to construct their own schemas. It is a call to all authors, educators and information designers to pay attention to meaningful presentation that expresses the internal structure of the domain and facilitates the learner's assimilation of concepts and their relationships.

0.05230877 = product of:
  0.20923509 = sum of:
    0.20923509 = weight(_text_:helping in 2890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20923509 = score(doc=2890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.5340837 = fieldWeight in 2890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2890)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Library catalogs do not provide catalog users with the assistance they need to easily and confidently select the person they are interested in. Examples are provided of Web services that do a better job of helping information seekers differentiate the person they are seeking from those with similar names. Some of the reasons for this failure in library catalogs are examined. This article then looks at how much information is necessary to help users disambiguate names, how that information could be captured and shared, and some ways the information could be displayed in library catalogs.

0.04483609 = product of:
  0.17934436 = sum of:
    0.17934436 = weight(_text_:helping in 4728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17934436 = score(doc=4728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.45778602 = fieldWeight in 4728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4728)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A comprehensive and easy-to-use version of the best-selling "Know it All, Find It Fast" developed specifically for information professionals working in academic libraries, this will help you to tackle the questions most commonly asked by students, academics and researchers. It is a broad cross-disciplinary A-Z of themes including topics such as literature searching, plagiarism and using online resources are covered helping you to address any query confidently and quickly. Each topic is split into four sections to guide your response: typical questions listing the common enquiries you'll encounter; considerations exploring the issues and challenges that might arise; where to look listing annotated resources in print and online; and, tips and pitfalls outlining useful suggestions and common problems. This will prove an indispensable day-to-day guide for anyone working with students, academics and researchers in an academic library.

0.04483609 = product of:
  0.17934436 = sum of:
    0.17934436 = weight(_text_:helping in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17934436 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.45778602 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Given their ease of use and capability for interactivity, new media are seen as having the potential to make visible previously marginalized voices. The online presence of the writing of history is increasing, and this potential would be a welcome development for the field as it would create a much richer set of easily available historical perspectives. However, this article suggests that the achievement of this promise is fraught with difficulty and that a more likely outcome is a mapping of the status quo in historical representation onto the new media. To illustrate this, I present an analysis of the Wikipedia accounts of Singaporean and Philippine history. For Singapore, alternative historical visions are not as developed as those for the Philippines, and this is reflected in the nature of the respective Wikipedia accounts. I suggest that a possible means to achieve something more of the promise of digital media for history is for information professionals to take a keener interest in Wikipedia, with an eye to helping include accounts of documented historical perspectives that are ignored by mainstream historiographical traditions.

0.04483609 = product of:
  0.17934436 = sum of:
    0.17934436 = weight(_text_:helping in 1838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17934436 = score(doc=1838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.45778602 = fieldWeight in 1838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1838)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Mathematical modelling is a field of applied mathematics with applications in other disciplines. The availability of a formal ontology and derived benefits, such as the possibility of conducting automated reasoning about the ontological classes of the domains, greatly reduce the barrier of entry in the field for non-experts, while helping the establishment of a more precise and controlled vocabulary among the domain experts involved in mathematical modelling. This work focuses on Mathematical Models applied to the natural sciences and as a case study the field of mathematical epidemiology has been chosen for this ontology. We propose the development of an ontology of mathematical models which is general enough and not restricted in its applicability, yet is developed considering the specific needs of a particular application domain.

0.04483609 = product of:
  0.17934436 = sum of:
    0.17934436 = weight(_text_:helping in 2583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17934436 = score(doc=2583,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.45778602 = fieldWeight in 2583, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2583)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The value of research data is recognized, and so is the importance of the associated metadata to contextualize, describe and ultimately render them understandable in the long term. Laboratory notebooks are an excellent source of domain-specific metadata, but this paper-based approach can pose risks of data loss, while limiting the possibilities of collaborative metadata production. The paper discusses the advantages of tools to complement paper-based laboratory notebooks in capturing metadata, regardless of the research domain. We propose LabTablet, an electronic laboratory book aimed at the collection of metadata from the early stages of the research workflow. To evaluate the use of LabTablet and the proposed workflow, researchers in two domains were asked to perform a set of tasks and provided insights about their experience. By rethinking the workflow and helping researchers to actively contribute to data description, the research outputs can be described with generic and domain-dependent metadata, thus improving their chances of being deposited, reused and preserved.

0.04483609 = product of:
  0.17934436 = sum of:
    0.17934436 = weight(_text_:helping in 3032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17934436 = score(doc=3032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.45778602 = fieldWeight in 3032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3032)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The increasing volume of information in the contemporary world entails demand for efficient knowledge management (KM) systems; a logical method of information organization that will allow proper semantic querying to identify things that match meaning in natural language. On this concept, the role of an information manager goes beyond implementing a search and clustering system, to the ability to map and logically present the subject domain and related cross domains. From Knowledge Abstraction to Management answers this need by analysing ontology tools and techniques, helping the reader develop

0.04483609 = product of:
  0.17934436 = sum of:
    0.17934436 = weight(_text_:helping in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17934436 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.45778602 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Product information labels can help users understand complex information, leading them to make better decisions. One area where consumers are particularly prone to make costly decision-making errors is long-term saving, which requires understanding of complex concepts such as uncertainty and trade-offs. Although most people are poorly equipped to deal with such concepts, interactive design can potentially help users make better decisions. We developed an interactive information label to assist consumers with retirement saving decision-making. To evaluate it, we exposed 450 users to one of four user interface conditions in a retirement saving simulator where they made 35 yearly decisions under changing circumstances. We found a significantly better ability of users to reach their goals with the information label. Furthermore, users who interacted with the label made better decisions than those who were presented with a static information label. Lastly, we found the label particularly effective in helping novice savers.

0.04483609 = product of:
  0.17934436 = sum of:
    0.17934436 = weight(_text_:helping in 583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17934436 = score(doc=583,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.45778602 = fieldWeight in 583, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=583)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.042271867 = product of:
  0.16908747 = sum of:
    0.16908747 = weight(_text_:helping in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16908747 = score(doc=4818,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.4316048 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A brochure on RDA issued in 2010 includes the statements that "RDA goes beyond earlier cataloguing codes in that it provides guidelines on cataloguing digital resources and a stronger emphasis on helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want. RDA also supports clustering of bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators. This important new feature makes users more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats - an exciting development." Setting aside the fact that the author(s) of these statements and I differ on the definition of exciting, their claims are, at best, dubious. There is no evidence-empirical or anecdotal-that bibliographic records created using RDA are any better than records created using AACR2 (or AACR, for that matter) in "helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want." The claim is especially unfounded in the context of the current discovery ecosystem, in which users are perfectly capable of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information with absolutely no assistance from libraries or the bibliographic data libraries create.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 1324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=1324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 1324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1324)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 1964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=1964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 1964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1964)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Web 2.0 creates a new world of collaboration. Many online communities of practice have provided a virtual Internet platform for members to create, collaborate, and contribute their expertise and knowledge. To date, we still do not fully understand how members evaluate their knowledge-sharing experiences, and how these evaluations affect their decisions to continue sharing knowledge in online communities of practice. In this study, we examined why members continue to share knowledge in online communities of practice, through theorizing and empirically validating the factors and emergent mechanisms (post-knowledge-sharing evaluation processes) that drive continuance. Specifically, we theorized that members make judgments about their knowledge-sharing behaviors by comparing their normative expectations of reciprocity and capability of helping other members with their actual experiences. We empirically tested our research model using an online survey of members of an online community of practice. Our results showed that when members found that they receive the reciprocity they expected, they will feel satisfied. Likewise, when they found that they can help other members as they expected, they will feel satisfied and their knowledge self-efficacy will also be enhanced. Both satisfaction and knowledge self-efficacy further affect their intention to continue sharing knowledge in an online community of practice. We expect this study will generate interest among researchers in this important area of research, and that the model proposed in this article will serve as a starting point for furthering our limited understanding of continuance behaviors in online communities of practice.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Digital possessions are digital items that individuals distinguish from other digital items by specific qualities that individuals perceive the digital items to possess. Twenty-three participants were interviewed about their definitions of and relationships with digital possessions to identify the most salient characteristics of digital possessions and to inform preservation. Findings indicate that digital possessions are characterized as (a) providing evidence of the individual, (b) representing the individual's identity, (c) being recognized as having value, and (d) exhibiting a sense of bounded control. Furthermore, archival concepts of primary, secondary, and intrinsic values provide the frame for the defining characteristics. Although several findings from this study are consistent with former studies of material possessions and digital possessions, this study expands research in the area using the concept of digital possessions to inform preservation and by applying archival principles of value. Understanding the nature of the individual and digital item relationship provides potential to explore new areas of reference and outreach services in libraries and archives. As the nature of archival and library reference services evolves, some scholars have predicted that archives and libraries will play a part in helping individuals manage their personal collections An exploration of individuals' relationships with their digital possessions can serve as a starting point at which scholars can explore the potential of personal information management consulting as a new area of reference and information services, specifically for the preservation of personal digital material.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 2331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=2331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 2331, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2331)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=2756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 2756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2756)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this review is to draw out patterns of information seeking behavior of graduate students as described in the empirical research published from 1997 to the present. Design/methodology/approach - A systematic search of databases for studies on information behavior and graduate students was employed in order to retrieve studies for a systematic review. Common themes that emerged from the literature were synthesized into a discussion of behavior patterns. Additionally a study quality analysis was conducted for all retrieved studies using a critical appraisal checklist for library and information research. Findings - This review revealed that graduate students begin their research on the internet much like any other information seeker, consult their faculty advisors before other people, and use libraries in diverse ways depending on the discipline studied. Additionally differences were noted between international and home students, and doctoral and master's students. Practical implications - The findings of this review indicate that information behavior research conducted on graduate students should delineate between masters' and doctoral students. Further, the findings may inform both academic librarian and faculty practice as to how to assist students with their research by helping them to understand how students typically approach research and how other institutions address common issues with special populations, such as non-native speakers and distance learners. Originality/value - No comprehensive review of information behavior studies, encompassing only the behaviors of graduate students has been conducted to date.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=2781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 2781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 3333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=3333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 3333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3333)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The most significant challenge in facilitating a professional virtual community (PVC) is maintaining a continuous supply of knowledge from members, especially because lurkers often make up a large portion of an online community. However, we still do not understand how knowledge-sharing intention (KSI) is formed across poster and lurker groups. Accordingly, this study seeks to provide a fuller understanding of the formation of behavioral intention in PVCs by decomposing the psychological formation of KSI and focusing on factors deemed likely to influence the KSI of posters and lurkers. This study's online survey of 177 posters and 246 lurkers from 3 PVCs demonstrated that enjoyment in helping others positively influenced posters' attitudes toward knowledge sharing, whereas reciprocity and technology adoption variables (perceived ease of use and compatibility) positively influenced lurkers' attitudes. Interpersonal trust and peer influence strongly affected the subjective norm of knowledge sharing in both groups, with posters emphasizing interpersonal trust and lurkers emphasizing peer influence. Furthermore, knowledge self-efficacy and resource availability enhanced the perceived behavioral control of knowledge sharing in both groups, with knowledge self-efficacy affecting posters the most and resource availability influencing lurkers the most. The results of this study have important implications for both research and practice.

0.037363406 = product of:
  0.14945363 = sum of:
    0.14945363 = weight(_text_:helping in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14945363 = score(doc=3717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39176458 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.056730803 = queryNorm
        0.38148835 = fieldWeight in 3717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.905677 = idf(docFreq=120, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3717)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As the volume and breadth of online information is rapidly increasing, ad hoc search systems become less and less efficient to answer information needs of modern users. To support the growing complexity of search tasks, researchers in the field of information developed and explored a range of approaches that extend the traditional ad hoc retrieval paradigm. Among these approaches, personalized search systems and exploratory search systems attracted many followers. Personalized search explored the power of artificial intelligence techniques to provide tailored search results according to different user interests, contexts, and tasks. In contrast, exploratory search capitalized on the power of human intelligence by providing users with more powerful interfaces to support the search process. As these approaches are not contradictory, we believe that they can re-enforce each other. We argue that the effectiveness of personalized search systems may be increased by allowing users to interact with the system and learn/investigate the problem in order to reach the final goal. We also suggest that an interactive visualization approach could offer a good ground to combine the strong sides of personalized and exploratory search approaches. This paper proposes a specific way to integrate interactive visualization and personalized search and introduces an adaptive visualization based search system Adaptive VIBE that implements it. We tested the effectiveness of Adaptive VIBE and investigated its strengths and weaknesses by conducting a full-scale user study. The results show that Adaptive VIBE can improve the precision and the productivity of the personalized search system while helping users to discover more diverse sets of information.