INLS
180 Day 27 Notes
April
16, 2002
Notes
on the rest of semester;
Project schedule
April 18
Christy
Anne, Donald, Meichun, & Obi
Michael, Eva, & Li
Matt, Nan, & David
Cynny
Will & Jessica
Nancy, Hetna, & Li
April 30
Sara, Kristy, & Ok Nam
Xiang
Brandee & Julie
Maria & Miriam
Betsy & Beth
Karen & Laura
Jackie & Deborah
Rebecca
Carla & Kristen
Tony
Justin
Helen
April
30 project presentations. Projects
due. Monday, May 6 last day to turn in
projects
Notes
on list about MUDS/MOOS/games electronic addictions
Big Points
New
communications media (e.g., MOOs) raise social/political issues
New
communication environments as laboratories for research and development
People’s
behavior in cyberspace may be inconsistent with their real life
styles/behaviors
New media
demonstrate new script, new scenery, same old story—human behavior centered
[recall the media equation]
Technology
is blurring different forms of comm. (the four we consider in this class)
Questions
What are best applications of MOOs
for learning? (e.g., second language learning)
Will MOO questionnaire results be
posted [yes, the project report]
How will (should?) online
environments be policed/managed?
Do chat/moo environments work best
with a moderator?
Are moos a fad?
What kinds of idea censorship occur
in scholarly communities? [see Kuhn; consider string theory]
People who dominate class
discussions also dominate moo interactions?
Will these media crate new gaps
among people?
Any non-entertainment apps of moos?
[do a google search for examples]
Must we train 3 year olds to use
these technologies for them to be effective adult users?
Why define user characteristics in
moos? [to give some context that is so otherwise impoverished]
Would people have behaved differently
in the moo if their picture (real?) was also displayed?
Would I hold a class in a moo?
Discuss readings
Doctor, R. D. (1992). Social equity and information
technologies: Moving toward information democracy. (Jackie Barton)
Anderson, R., Bikson, T., Law, S., & Mitchell, B. (1995). Universal access
to e-mail: Feasibility and societal implications. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND [Read: Summary xiii-xxiii AND Chapter One: Introduction p. 1-12.]
(Mattew Bachtell)3. .
Harnad (toward prepublication archives)
---note the churn in the journal world…recent mass resignation of Machine Learning EdBoard and Kluwer response
Smith:
Informetrics and Bibliometrics
queueing theory, circulation models, operations research
citation analysis, from individuals to groups to organizations; from doc to doc to doc to field to field to field
see http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/info_maps.html for maps of comm patterns
Problems of citation analysis
Multiple authors
Self-citations
Homographs (same name/different authors)
Synonyms (name variants)
Types of sources (books vs journals, some journals limit citations)
Implicit citations (discussed or implied but not cited)
Time fluctuations (year to year)
Field variations (e.g., humanities vs sciences)
Errors
See web of science from UNC Library page
See www.citeseer.com
Applications
Various literature studies
User studies
Historical studies
Communication patterns (e.g., how ideas spread)
IR (e.g., google, Clever today)
Collection development
Recommendation systems
Logical Assumptions (Griffith, Drott & Small)
1. X cited by Y is more likely to be related to Y than arbitrary A not cited
1. X cited by Y and A not cited by Y=>more likely that X was used in preparation of Y
2. Y and Z cite X=>more likely Y and Z are related than A and B citing no docs in common
Y cites X and Z=>X and Z more likely related to each other than to A not cited by Y (not co-cited with X and Y)