首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   169篇
  免费   4篇
教育   116篇
科学研究   7篇
各国文化   2篇
体育   9篇
文化理论   1篇
信息传播   38篇
  2023年   1篇
  2022年   1篇
  2021年   2篇
  2020年   9篇
  2019年   12篇
  2018年   14篇
  2017年   7篇
  2016年   10篇
  2015年   1篇
  2014年   9篇
  2013年   34篇
  2012年   3篇
  2011年   8篇
  2010年   4篇
  2009年   5篇
  2008年   3篇
  2007年   1篇
  2005年   6篇
  2004年   7篇
  2003年   2篇
  2002年   3篇
  2001年   1篇
  2000年   3篇
  1998年   1篇
  1997年   1篇
  1996年   2篇
  1995年   1篇
  1994年   1篇
  1993年   1篇
  1992年   4篇
  1991年   1篇
  1988年   2篇
  1985年   2篇
  1983年   1篇
  1981年   2篇
  1980年   1篇
  1978年   2篇
  1977年   1篇
  1975年   1篇
  1973年   1篇
  1968年   1篇
  1962年   1篇
排序方式: 共有173条查询结果,搜索用时 250 毫秒
1.
2.
OBJECTIVE: The article explores the characteristics of public health information needs and the resources available to address those needs that distinguish it as an area of searching requiring particular expertise. METHODS: Public health searching activities from reference questions and literature search requests at a large, urban health department library were reviewed to identify the challenges in finding relevant public health information. RESULTS: The terminology of the information request frequently differed from the vocabularies available in the databases. Searches required the use of multiple databases and/or Web resources with diverse interfaces. Issues of the scope and features of the databases relevant to the search questions were considered. CONCLUSION: Expert searching in public health differs from other types of expert searching in the subject breadth and technical demands of the databases to be searched, the fluidity and lack of standardization of the vocabulary, and the relative scarcity of high-quality investigations at the appropriate level of geographic specificity. Health sciences librarians require a broad exposure to databases, gray literature, and public health terminology to perform as expert searchers in public health.  相似文献   
3.

Objective

“One Health” is an interdisciplinary approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments they share that relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. The authors'' objective was to evaluate the extent of open access (OA) to journal articles in a sample of literature from these domains. We hypothesized that OA to articles in human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature.

Methods

A One Health seminar series provided fifteen topics. One librarian translated each topic into a search strategy and searched four databases for articles from 2011 to 2012. Two independent investigators assigned each article to human health, the environment, animal health, all, other, or combined categories. Article and journal-level OA were determined. Each journal was also assigned a subject category and its indexing evaluated.

Results

Searches retrieved 2,651 unique articles from 1,138 journals; 1,919 (72%) articles came from 406 journals that contributed more than 1 article. Seventy-seven (7%) journals dealt with all 3 One Health domains; the remaining journals represented human health 487 (43%), environment 172 (15%), animal health 141 (12%), and other/combined categories 261 (23%). The proportion of OA journals in animal health (40%) differed significantly from journals categorized as human (28%), environment (28%), and more than 1 category (29%). The proportion of OA for articles by subject categories ranged from 25%–34%; only the difference between human (34%) and environment (25%) was significant.

Conclusions

OA to human health literature is more comparable to animal health than hypothesized. Environmental journals had less OA than anticipated.Keywords (Medical Subject Headings) Publishing, Periodicals as Topic, Access to Information, Veterinary Medicine, Environment, Environmental Health, Medicine“One Health” is an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to solve complex problems at the diverse interfaces shared by humans, animals, and the environment [1]. The One Health approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments that they share relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. Although there is a growing body of literature about the development of the One Health concept as documented by Pepper, Carrigan, Shurtz, and Foster [2], this literature is not the same as the combination of literature from the three domains that is applied in service of One Health. Every discipline related to One Health has its unique mindset and language, with corresponding lists of acronyms that are frequently an impediment to effective communication across the participating professions. Relevant papers guiding a One Health approach may never specifically use “One Health” as a term or concept.To promote better communication and collaboration among health professionals and environmental scientists, a public monthly One Health Intellectual Exchange Group (IEG) hosted by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center was launched in 2009. In 2011, faculty from the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, University of North Carolina''s Gillings School for Global Public Health, Duke Global Health Institute, and Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University expanded the IEG series into a weekly seminar course with eight One Health focus areas [3]. The eight focus area modules were the following: an introduction to One Health; environmental health and ecology; the human and animal bond; zoonoses and emerging infectious diseases; food and water safety; disease surveillance, informatics, and disaster preparedness; benefits of comparative medicine; and policy and education (Appendix A, online only). Each seminar speaker recommended papers to read prior to the session to provide a foundation for the topic because student backgrounds and majors were quite diverse. Represented student majors included master''s of public health, master''s of animal science, doctor of veterinary medicine, graduate-level environmental sciences, and undergraduate-level biochemistry, engineering, and biology.Open access (OA) to relevant literature is very important to scholars and practitioners working on interdisciplinary problems. The One Health Proof of Concept Workgroup found that few studies assess outcomes in human, animal, and environmental spheres simultaneously [4], making it important to be able to access articles from each of the three domains to get a more complete picture.The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of OA to journal articles in a sample of literature relevant to One Health from the human, animal, and environmental domains. Working in a college of veterinary medicine and supporting faculty, staff, and students addressing interdisciplinary problems under the One Health umbrella [5], the authors were familiar with the extent of OA in human biomedical and public health literature and the literature of veterinary medicine but were less familiar with environmental journals. In light of general availability of environmental information and OA to publications such as Environmental Health Perspectives, we thought it likely that environmental literature would be relatively open compared to the other subject areas. Therefore, we hypothesized OA to articles from human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature. We chose to look at article-level subject categorization and access, as well as journal-level categorization and access, because they might differ. Article-level access relates more to authors'' decisions about OA for a content domain, while journal-level access and subject categorization are driven by publishers and associations. Understanding the distinction and having data would inform our efforts to promote increased OA to this literature.  相似文献   
4.
ABSTRACT

The Anglican Church congresses sought to foster relations between clergy and lay people. They promoted the Church as part of the social fabric of the nation with parades, civic receptions, services and public talks. Women were a presence at the congresses as platform speakers, organisers, hostesses and members of the audience. Congresses provided opportunities for informal collaborations and networking between organisations including the National Union of Women Workers, Mothers’ Union and Girls’ Friendly Society. Dedicated women’s sections from 1881 provided a space that was exploited by women activists seeking a voice in the public sphere. The congresses reflected a context of increasing professionalisation amongst women. This article celebrates the contribution made by women in the role of popular educators via congress platforms between 1882 and 1913. In addition, the article seeks to commemorate the unvoiced presence of working class women who engaged with the congresses as members of the audience.  相似文献   
5.
Adolescents (n=43) previously diagnosed as dyslexic/reading disabled had markedly lower IQ scores on the newly standardized Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) than on the earlier administered WISC-R. The declines for Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs were 10, 12, and 11 points, respectively, which were twice as great as in a subset of the standardization sample given both versions of the WISC. The adolescents did not show a significant decline in standard scores from the Wide Range Achievement Test (Level I to Level II). However, only two subjects had current reading and spelling standard scores above the 25th percentile. The impact of lower WISC-III IQs on guidelines for classification of students as learning disabled is discussed.  相似文献   
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Using the PISA 2015 releases in Norway and England, this article explores how PISA has been presented in the media and how the policy level has responded to the results. England will be used as an example for comparison. The article presents early media responses from the 20 most circulated daily newspapers in the two countries and discusses them in relation both to the national PISA reports in Norway and England, as well as the international report of the OECD. The media responses are further interpreted in light of previous research in both countries, with a particular focus upon Norway, where previous Ministers of Education have been interviewed about assessment policy and education reforms.  相似文献   
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号