PurposeUpcycling is conceptualised as a digital historical research practice aimed at increasing the scientific value of historical data collections produced in print or in electronic form between the eighteenth and the late twentieth centuries. The concept of upcycling facilitates data rescue and reuse as well as the study of information creation processes deployed by previous generations of researchers.Design/methodology/approachBased on a selection of two historical reference works and two legacy collections, an upcycling workflow consisting of three parts (input, processing and documentation and output) is developed. The workflow facilitates the study of historical information creation processes based on paradata analysis and targets the cognitive processes that precede and accompany the creation of historical data collections.FindingsThe proposed upcycling workflow furthers the understanding of computational methods and their role in historical research. Through its focus on the information creation processes that precede and accompany historical research, the upcycling workflow contributes to historical data criticism and digital hermeneutics.Originality/valueMany historical data collections produced between the eighteenth and the late twentieth century do not comply with the principles of FAIR data. The paper argues that ignoring the work of previous generations of researchers is not an option, because it would make current research practices more vulnerable and would result in losing access to the experiences and knowledge accumulated by previous generations of scientists. The proposed upcycling workflow takes historical data collections seriously and makes them available for future generations of researchers.
{"title":"Upcycling historical data collections. A paradigm for digital history?","authors":"Werner Scheltjens","doi":"10.1108/jd-12-2022-0271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-12-2022-0271","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeUpcycling is conceptualised as a digital historical research practice aimed at increasing the scientific value of historical data collections produced in print or in electronic form between the eighteenth and the late twentieth centuries. The concept of upcycling facilitates data rescue and reuse as well as the study of information creation processes deployed by previous generations of researchers.Design/methodology/approachBased on a selection of two historical reference works and two legacy collections, an upcycling workflow consisting of three parts (input, processing and documentation and output) is developed. The workflow facilitates the study of historical information creation processes based on paradata analysis and targets the cognitive processes that precede and accompany the creation of historical data collections.FindingsThe proposed upcycling workflow furthers the understanding of computational methods and their role in historical research. Through its focus on the information creation processes that precede and accompany historical research, the upcycling workflow contributes to historical data criticism and digital hermeneutics.Originality/valueMany historical data collections produced between the eighteenth and the late twentieth century do not comply with the principles of FAIR data. The paper argues that ignoring the work of previous generations of researchers is not an option, because it would make current research practices more vulnerable and would result in losing access to the experiences and knowledge accumulated by previous generations of scientists. The proposed upcycling workflow takes historical data collections seriously and makes them available for future generations of researchers.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47396606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Purpose“Scholarly Communication” is a frequent topic of both the professional and research literature of Library and Information Science (LIS). Despite efforts by individuals (e.g. Borgman, 1989) and organizations such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to define the term, multiple understandings of it remain. Discussions of scholarly communication infrequently offer a definition or explanation of its parameters, making it difficult for readers to form a comprehensive understanding of scholarly communication and associated phenomena.Design/methodology/approachThis project uses the evolutionary concept analysis (ECA) method developed by nursing scholar, Beth L. Rodgers, to explore “Scholarly Communication” as employed in the literature of LIS. As the purpose of ECA is not to arrive at “the” definition of a term but rather exploring its utilization within a specific context, it is an ideal approach to expand our understanding of SC as used in LIS research.Findings“Scholarly Communication” as employed in the LIS literature does not refer to a single phenomenon or idea, but rather is a concept with several dimensions and sub-dimensions with distinct, but overlapping, significance.Research limitations/implicationsThe concept analysis (CA) method calls for review of a named concept, i.e. verbatim. Therefore, the items included in the data set must include the phrase “scholarly communication”. Items using alternate terminology were excluded from analysis.Practical implicationsThe model of scholarly communication presented in this paper provides language to operationalize the concept.Originality/valueLIS lacks a nuanced understanding of “scholarly communication” as used in the LIS literature. This paper offers a model to further the field's collective understanding of the term and support operationalization for future research projects.
摘要“学术传播”是图书馆情报学专业文献和研究文献中经常讨论的话题。尽管个人(如Borgman, 1989)和大学和研究图书馆协会(ACRL)等组织努力定义这个术语，但对它的多种理解仍然存在。关于学术传播的讨论很少对其参数进行定义或解释，这使得读者很难对学术传播及其相关现象形成全面的理解。设计/方法/途径本项目采用护理学者Beth L. Rodgers开发的进化概念分析(ECA)方法，探索LIS文献中使用的“学术交流”。由于ECA的目的不是得出一个术语的“定义”，而是探索其在特定背景下的应用，因此它是扩展我们对LIS研究中使用的SC的理解的理想方法。美国文献中使用的“学术传播”不是指单一的现象或思想，而是一个包含多个维度和子维度的概念，这些维度和子维度具有不同但又重叠的意义。研究限制/意义概念分析(CA)方法要求对已命名的概念进行逐字审查。因此，数据集中包含的项目必须包含短语“学术交流”。使用替代术语的项目被排除在分析之外。实践意义本文提出的学术交流模式提供了将这一概念付诸实践的语言。原创性/价值美国缺乏对美国文献中使用的“学术交流”的细致理解。本文提供了一个模型，以促进该领域对该术语的集体理解，并支持未来研究项目的可操作性。
{"title":"Scholarly communication: a concept analysis","authors":"Rachel Fleming-May","doi":"10.1108/jd-09-2022-0197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-09-2022-0197","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose“Scholarly Communication” is a frequent topic of both the professional and research literature of Library and Information Science (LIS). Despite efforts by individuals (e.g. Borgman, 1989) and organizations such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to define the term, multiple understandings of it remain. Discussions of scholarly communication infrequently offer a definition or explanation of its parameters, making it difficult for readers to form a comprehensive understanding of scholarly communication and associated phenomena.Design/methodology/approachThis project uses the evolutionary concept analysis (ECA) method developed by nursing scholar, Beth L. Rodgers, to explore “Scholarly Communication” as employed in the literature of LIS. As the purpose of ECA is not to arrive at “the” definition of a term but rather exploring its utilization within a specific context, it is an ideal approach to expand our understanding of SC as used in LIS research.Findings“Scholarly Communication” as employed in the LIS literature does not refer to a single phenomenon or idea, but rather is a concept with several dimensions and sub-dimensions with distinct, but overlapping, significance.Research limitations/implicationsThe concept analysis (CA) method calls for review of a named concept, i.e. verbatim. Therefore, the items included in the data set must include the phrase “scholarly communication”. Items using alternate terminology were excluded from analysis.Practical implicationsThe model of scholarly communication presented in this paper provides language to operationalize the concept.Originality/valueLIS lacks a nuanced understanding of “scholarly communication” as used in the LIS literature. This paper offers a model to further the field's collective understanding of the term and support operationalization for future research projects.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42683097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alejandro Morales-Vargas, R. Pedraza-Jiménez, Lluís Codina
PurposeThe field of website quality evaluation attracts the interest of a range of disciplines, each bringing its own particular perspective to bear. This study aims to identify the main characteristics – methods, techniques and tools – of the instruments of evaluation described in this literature, with a specific concern for the factors analysed, and based on these, a multipurpose model is proposed for the development of new comprehensive instruments.Design/methodology/approachFollowing a systematic bibliographic review, 305 publications on website quality are examined, the field's leading authors, their disciplines of origin and the sectors to which the websites being assessed belong are identified, and the methods they employ characterised.FindingsEvaluations of website quality tend to be conducted with one of three primary focuses: strategic, functional or experiential. The technique of expert analysis predominates over user studies and most of the instruments examined classify the characteristics to be evaluated – for example, usability and content – into factors that operate at different levels, albeit that there is little agreement on the names used in referring to them.Originality/valueBased on the factors detected in the 50 most cited works, a model is developed that classifies these factors into 13 dimensions and more than 120 general parameters. The resulting model provides a comprehensive evaluation framework and constitutes an initial step towards a shared conceptualization of the discipline of website quality.
{"title":"Website quality evaluation: a model for developing comprehensive assessment instruments based on key quality factors","authors":"Alejandro Morales-Vargas, R. Pedraza-Jiménez, Lluís Codina","doi":"10.1108/jd-11-2022-0246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-11-2022-0246","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe field of website quality evaluation attracts the interest of a range of disciplines, each bringing its own particular perspective to bear. This study aims to identify the main characteristics – methods, techniques and tools – of the instruments of evaluation described in this literature, with a specific concern for the factors analysed, and based on these, a multipurpose model is proposed for the development of new comprehensive instruments.Design/methodology/approachFollowing a systematic bibliographic review, 305 publications on website quality are examined, the field's leading authors, their disciplines of origin and the sectors to which the websites being assessed belong are identified, and the methods they employ characterised.FindingsEvaluations of website quality tend to be conducted with one of three primary focuses: strategic, functional or experiential. The technique of expert analysis predominates over user studies and most of the instruments examined classify the characteristics to be evaluated – for example, usability and content – into factors that operate at different levels, albeit that there is little agreement on the names used in referring to them.Originality/valueBased on the factors detected in the 50 most cited works, a model is developed that classifies these factors into 13 dimensions and more than 120 general parameters. The resulting model provides a comprehensive evaluation framework and constitutes an initial step towards a shared conceptualization of the discipline of website quality.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46859198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dilawar Ali, Kenzo Milleville, S. Verstockt, N. van de Weghe, Sally Chambers, Julie M. Birkholz
PurposeHistorical newspaper collections provide a wealth of information about the past. Although the digitization of these collections significantly improves their accessibility, a large portion of digitized historical newspaper collections, such as those of KBR, the Royal Library of Belgium, are not yet searchable at article-level. However, recent developments in AI-based research methods, such as document layout analysis, have the potential for further enriching the metadata to improve the searchability of these historical newspaper collections. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned issue.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors explore how existing computer vision and machine learning approaches can be used to improve access to digitized historical newspapers. To do this, the authors propose a workflow, using computer vision and machine learning approaches to (1) provide article-level access to digitized historical newspaper collections using document layout analysis, (2) extract specific types of articles (e.g. feuilletons – literary supplements from Le Peuple from 1938), (3) conduct image similarity analysis using (un)supervised classification methods and (4) perform named entity recognition (NER) to link the extracted information to open data.FindingsThe results show that the proposed workflow improves the accessibility and searchability of digitized historical newspapers, and also contributes to the building of corpora for digital humanities research. The AI-based methods enable automatic extraction of feuilletons, clustering of similar images and dynamic linking of related articles.Originality/valueThe proposed workflow enables automatic extraction of articles, including detection of a specific type of article, such as a feuilleton or literary supplement. This is particularly valuable for humanities researchers as it improves the searchability of these collections and enables corpora to be built around specific themes. Article-level access to, and improved searchability of, KBR's digitized newspapers are demonstrated through the online tool (https://tw06v072.ugent.be/kbr/).
{"title":"Computer vision and machine learning approaches for metadata enrichment to improve searchability of historical newspaper collections","authors":"Dilawar Ali, Kenzo Milleville, S. Verstockt, N. van de Weghe, Sally Chambers, Julie M. Birkholz","doi":"10.1108/jd-01-2022-0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-01-2022-0029","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeHistorical newspaper collections provide a wealth of information about the past. Although the digitization of these collections significantly improves their accessibility, a large portion of digitized historical newspaper collections, such as those of KBR, the Royal Library of Belgium, are not yet searchable at article-level. However, recent developments in AI-based research methods, such as document layout analysis, have the potential for further enriching the metadata to improve the searchability of these historical newspaper collections. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned issue.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors explore how existing computer vision and machine learning approaches can be used to improve access to digitized historical newspapers. To do this, the authors propose a workflow, using computer vision and machine learning approaches to (1) provide article-level access to digitized historical newspaper collections using document layout analysis, (2) extract specific types of articles (e.g. feuilletons – literary supplements from Le Peuple from 1938), (3) conduct image similarity analysis using (un)supervised classification methods and (4) perform named entity recognition (NER) to link the extracted information to open data.FindingsThe results show that the proposed workflow improves the accessibility and searchability of digitized historical newspapers, and also contributes to the building of corpora for digital humanities research. The AI-based methods enable automatic extraction of feuilletons, clustering of similar images and dynamic linking of related articles.Originality/valueThe proposed workflow enables automatic extraction of articles, including detection of a specific type of article, such as a feuilleton or literary supplement. This is particularly valuable for humanities researchers as it improves the searchability of these collections and enables corpora to be built around specific themes. Article-level access to, and improved searchability of, KBR's digitized newspapers are demonstrated through the online tool (https://tw06v072.ugent.be/kbr/).","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48996879","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PurposeThis study investigates how important the preprint arXiv is for Slovenian scientists, whether there are differences between scientific disciplines and the reputation of arXiv among Slovenian scientists. We are also interested in what advantages and disadvantages scientists see in using arXiv.Design/methodology/approachA voluntary sample of active researchers from the scientific fields covered by arXiv was used. Data were collected over 21 days in September 2021 using a 40-question online survey. In addition to descriptive statistics, nonparametric statistical methods such as Pearson's chi-squared test for independence, Kruskal-Wallis' H-test and Mann-Whitney's U-test were applied to the collected data.FindingsAmong Slovenian scientists there is a wide range of different users of arXiv. The authors note differences among scientific disciplines. Physicists and astronomers are the most engaged, followed by mathematicians. Researchers in computer science, electrical engineering and systems science seem to have recognized the benefits of the archive, but are still hesitant to use it. Researchers from the other scientific fields participated in the survey to a lesser extent, suggesting that arXiv is less popular in these scientific fields. For Slovenian scientists, the main advantages of arXiv are faster access to knowledge, open access, greater impact of scientists' work and the fact that publishing in the archive is free of charge. A negative aspect of using the archive is the frustration caused by the difficulties in assessing the credibility of articles.Research limitations/implicationsA voluntary sample was used, which attracted a larger number of researchers but has a higher risk of sampling bias.Practical implicationsThe results are useful for international comparisons, but also provide bases and recommendations for institutional and national policies to evaluate researchers and their performance.Originality/valueThe results provide valuable insights into arXiv usage habits and the reasons for using or not using arXiv by Slovenian scientists. There is no comparable study conducted in Slovenia.
{"title":"Exploring arXiv usage habits among Slovenian scientists","authors":"Zala Metelko, J. Maver","doi":"10.1108/jd-07-2022-0162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-07-2022-0162","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study investigates how important the preprint arXiv is for Slovenian scientists, whether there are differences between scientific disciplines and the reputation of arXiv among Slovenian scientists. We are also interested in what advantages and disadvantages scientists see in using arXiv.Design/methodology/approachA voluntary sample of active researchers from the scientific fields covered by arXiv was used. Data were collected over 21 days in September 2021 using a 40-question online survey. In addition to descriptive statistics, nonparametric statistical methods such as Pearson's chi-squared test for independence, Kruskal-Wallis' H-test and Mann-Whitney's U-test were applied to the collected data.FindingsAmong Slovenian scientists there is a wide range of different users of arXiv. The authors note differences among scientific disciplines. Physicists and astronomers are the most engaged, followed by mathematicians. Researchers in computer science, electrical engineering and systems science seem to have recognized the benefits of the archive, but are still hesitant to use it. Researchers from the other scientific fields participated in the survey to a lesser extent, suggesting that arXiv is less popular in these scientific fields. For Slovenian scientists, the main advantages of arXiv are faster access to knowledge, open access, greater impact of scientists' work and the fact that publishing in the archive is free of charge. A negative aspect of using the archive is the frustration caused by the difficulties in assessing the credibility of articles.Research limitations/implicationsA voluntary sample was used, which attracted a larger number of researchers but has a higher risk of sampling bias.Practical implicationsThe results are useful for international comparisons, but also provide bases and recommendations for institutional and national policies to evaluate researchers and their performance.Originality/valueThe results provide valuable insights into arXiv usage habits and the reasons for using or not using arXiv by Slovenian scientists. There is no comparable study conducted in Slovenia.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42079725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mike Thelwall, Kayvan Kousha, Mahshid Abdoli, Emma Stuart, Meiko Makita, Paul Wilson, Jonathan M. Levitt
Purpose Scholars often aim to conduct high quality research and their success is judged primarily by peer reviewers. Research quality is difficult for either group to identify, however and misunderstandings can reduce the efficiency of the scientific enterprise. In response, we use a novel term association strategy to seek quantitative evidence of aspects of research that are associated with high or low quality. Design/methodology/approach We extracted the words and 2–5-word phrases most strongly associated with different quality scores in each of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. We extracted the terms from 122,331 journal articles 2014–2020 with individual REF2021 quality scores. Findings The terms associating with high- or low-quality scores vary between fields but relate to writing styles, methods and topics. We show that the first-person writing style strongly associates with higher quality research in many areas because it is the norm for a set of large prestigious journals. We found methods and topics that associate with both high- and low-quality scores. Worryingly, terms associated with educational and qualitative research attract lower quality scores in multiple areas. REF experts may rarely give high scores to qualitative or educational research because the authors tend to be less competent, because it is harder to do world leading research with these themes, or because they do not value them. Originality/value This is the first investigation of journal article terms associating with research quality.
{"title":"Terms in journal articles associating with high quality: can qualitative research be world-leading?","authors":"Mike Thelwall, Kayvan Kousha, Mahshid Abdoli, Emma Stuart, Meiko Makita, Paul Wilson, Jonathan M. Levitt","doi":"10.1108/jd-12-2022-0261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-12-2022-0261","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Scholars often aim to conduct high quality research and their success is judged primarily by peer reviewers. Research quality is difficult for either group to identify, however and misunderstandings can reduce the efficiency of the scientific enterprise. In response, we use a novel term association strategy to seek quantitative evidence of aspects of research that are associated with high or low quality. Design/methodology/approach We extracted the words and 2–5-word phrases most strongly associated with different quality scores in each of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. We extracted the terms from 122,331 journal articles 2014–2020 with individual REF2021 quality scores. Findings The terms associating with high- or low-quality scores vary between fields but relate to writing styles, methods and topics. We show that the first-person writing style strongly associates with higher quality research in many areas because it is the norm for a set of large prestigious journals. We found methods and topics that associate with both high- and low-quality scores. Worryingly, terms associated with educational and qualitative research attract lower quality scores in multiple areas. REF experts may rarely give high scores to qualitative or educational research because the authors tend to be less competent, because it is harder to do world leading research with these themes, or because they do not value them. Originality/value This is the first investigation of journal article terms associating with research quality.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136252547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mrinalini Luthra, Konstantin Todorov, C. Jeurgens, Giovanni Colavizza
PurposeThis paper aims to expand the scope and mitigate the biases of extant archival indexes.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use automatic entity recognition on the archives of the Dutch East India Company to extract mentions of underrepresented people.FindingsThe authors release an annotated corpus and baselines for a shared task and show that the proposed goal is feasible.Originality/valueColonial archives are increasingly a focus of attention for historians and the public, broadening access to them is a pressing need for archives.
{"title":"Unsilencing colonial archives via automated entity recognition","authors":"Mrinalini Luthra, Konstantin Todorov, C. Jeurgens, Giovanni Colavizza","doi":"10.1108/jd-02-2022-0038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-02-2022-0038","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper aims to expand the scope and mitigate the biases of extant archival indexes.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use automatic entity recognition on the archives of the Dutch East India Company to extract mentions of underrepresented people.FindingsThe authors release an annotated corpus and baselines for a shared task and show that the proposed goal is feasible.Originality/valueColonial archives are increasingly a focus of attention for historians and the public, broadening access to them is a pressing need for archives.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47580683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On thresholds: signs, symbols and significance","authors":"B. Martens","doi":"10.1108/JD-08-2022-0168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2022-0168","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"62074870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PurposeThis article aims to elaborate the context-sensitive nature of credibility assessment by examining how such judgments are made in online discussion in times of uncertainty caused by Finland's intent to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in spring 2022.Design/methodology/approachThe empirical findings draw on the qualitative content analysis of 3,324 posts submitted to a Finnish online discussion in February–March 2022. It was examined how the participants of online discussion assess the credibility of information sources referred to in debates on the NATO membership. It is assumed that the believability of the author of information is indicative of his or her expert power, for example based on the credentials of a scholar, while the credibility of information content, for example the provision of factual evidence is indicative of the source's informational power.FindingsPolitical decision-makers, particularly the President of Finland were assessed as most credible information sources, due to their access to confidential knowledge and long-time experience in politics. The credibility assessments differed more strongly while judging the believability of researchers. On the one hand, their expertise was praised; on the other hand, doubts were presented about their partiality. Fellow participants of online discussion were assessed most negatively because information sources of these types are associated with low expert and informational power.Research limitations/implicationsAs the study concentrated on credibility assessments made in a Finnish online discussion group, the findings cannot be extended to concern the credibility judgments occurring information in other contexts.Originality/valueThe study is among the first to characterize the role of expert and informational power in credibility assessment in times of uncertainty.
{"title":"Assessing the credibility of information sources in times of uncertainty: online debate about Finland's NATO membership","authors":"Reijo Savolainen","doi":"10.1108/jd-08-2022-0172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-08-2022-0172","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis article aims to elaborate the context-sensitive nature of credibility assessment by examining how such judgments are made in online discussion in times of uncertainty caused by Finland's intent to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in spring 2022.Design/methodology/approachThe empirical findings draw on the qualitative content analysis of 3,324 posts submitted to a Finnish online discussion in February–March 2022. It was examined how the participants of online discussion assess the credibility of information sources referred to in debates on the NATO membership. It is assumed that the believability of the author of information is indicative of his or her expert power, for example based on the credentials of a scholar, while the credibility of information content, for example the provision of factual evidence is indicative of the source's informational power.FindingsPolitical decision-makers, particularly the President of Finland were assessed as most credible information sources, due to their access to confidential knowledge and long-time experience in politics. The credibility assessments differed more strongly while judging the believability of researchers. On the one hand, their expertise was praised; on the other hand, doubts were presented about their partiality. Fellow participants of online discussion were assessed most negatively because information sources of these types are associated with low expert and informational power.Research limitations/implicationsAs the study concentrated on credibility assessments made in a Finnish online discussion group, the findings cannot be extended to concern the credibility judgments occurring information in other contexts.Originality/valueThe study is among the first to characterize the role of expert and informational power in credibility assessment in times of uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41945645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PurposeThis study aims to explore the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in archival practice by presenting the thoughts and opinions of working archival practitioners. It contributes to the extant literature with a fresh perspective, expanding the discussion on AI adoption by investigating how it influences the perceptions of digital archival expertise.Design/methodology/approachIn this study a two-phase data collection consisting of four online focus groups was held to gather the opinions of international archives and digital preservation professionals (n = 16), that participated on a volunteer basis. The qualitative analysis of the transcripts was performed using template analysis, a style of thematic analysis.FindingsFour main themes were identified: fitting AI into day to day practice; the responsible use of (AI) technology; managing expectations (about AI adoption) and bias associated with the use of AI. The analysis suggests that AI adoption combined with hindsight about digitisation as a disruptive technology might provide archival practitioners with a framework for re-defining, advocating and outlining digital archival expertise.Research limitations/implicationsThe volunteer basis of this study meant that the sample was not representative or generalisable.Originality/valueAlthough the results of this research are not generalisable, they shed light on the challenges prospected by the implementation of AI in the archives and for the digital curation professionals dealing with this change. The evolution of the characterisation of digital archival expertise is a topic reserved for future research.
{"title":"“So how do we balance all of these needs?”: how the concept of AI technology impacts digital archival expertise","authors":"Amber L. Cushing, Giulia Osti","doi":"10.1108/jd-08-2022-0170","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-08-2022-0170","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study aims to explore the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in archival practice by presenting the thoughts and opinions of working archival practitioners. It contributes to the extant literature with a fresh perspective, expanding the discussion on AI adoption by investigating how it influences the perceptions of digital archival expertise.Design/methodology/approachIn this study a two-phase data collection consisting of four online focus groups was held to gather the opinions of international archives and digital preservation professionals (n = 16), that participated on a volunteer basis. The qualitative analysis of the transcripts was performed using template analysis, a style of thematic analysis.FindingsFour main themes were identified: fitting AI into day to day practice; the responsible use of (AI) technology; managing expectations (about AI adoption) and bias associated with the use of AI. The analysis suggests that AI adoption combined with hindsight about digitisation as a disruptive technology might provide archival practitioners with a framework for re-defining, advocating and outlining digital archival expertise.Research limitations/implicationsThe volunteer basis of this study meant that the sample was not representative or generalisable.Originality/valueAlthough the results of this research are not generalisable, they shed light on the challenges prospected by the implementation of AI in the archives and for the digital curation professionals dealing with this change. The evolution of the characterisation of digital archival expertise is a topic reserved for future research.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46641304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：