Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

0.002654868 = product of:
  0.021238944 = sum of:
    0.021238944 = weight(_text_:information in 3400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021238944 = score(doc=3400,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 3400, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3400)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Introduction. Dramatic changes in society and in the information disciplines and professions constituted the basis for a re-conceptualization of the content of the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. Method. Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack, Editors of the forthcoming Third Edition, working with a fifty-person Editorial Advisory Board, developed the new, projected contents list for the encyclopedia, based upon principles developed in the re-conceptualization. Analysis. Drawing on Bates' "Invisible Substrate of Information Science" article, and other sources, the information disciplines are seen as consisting of the "disciplines of the cultural record" and the "information sciences." These disciplines are all concerned with the collection, organization and access to information, across the entire traditional spectrum of disciplines, such as the humanities and natural and social sciences. Results. The disciplines covered in the encyclopedia are library and information science, archival science, records management, information systems, informatics, knowledge management, museum studies, bibliography, document and genre studies, and social studies of information. A variety of cognate disciplines are briefly covered as well. Conclusions. The information disciplines are coming into their own in the 21st century. They are increasingly prominent in universities and in society generally, and, possibly with the help of the encyclopedia, may come increasingly to be seen as a set of related disciplines traversing a spectrum of their own.

Source

Information Research. 12(2007) no.4, paper colis29

0.0026012284 = product of:
  0.020809827 = sum of:
    0.020809827 = weight(_text_:information in 3721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020809827 = score(doc=3721,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 3721, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3721)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

A selection of representative definitions of information is drawn from information science and related disciplines, and discussed and compared. Defining information remains such a contested project that any claim to present a unified, singular vision of the topic would be disingenuous. Seven categories of definitions are described: Communicatory or semiotic; activity-based (i.e., information as event); propositional; structural; social; multitype; and deconstructionist. The impact of Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon is discussed, as well as the widespread influence of Karl Popper's ideas. The data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) continuum is also addressed. Work of these authors is reviewed: Marcia J. Bates, Gregory Bateson, B.C. Brookes, Michael Buckland, Ian Cornelius, Ronald Day, Richard Derr, Brenda Dervin, Fred Dretske, Jason Farradane, Christopher Fox, Bernd Frohmann, Jonathan Furner, J.A. Goguen, Robert Losee, A.D. Madden, D.M. McKay, Doede Nauta, A.D. Pratt, Frederick Thompson.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

Theme

Information

0.0024524617 = product of:
  0.019619694 = sum of:
    0.019619694 = weight(_text_:information in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019619694 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information processing and management. 13(1977), S.367-375

0.0024524617 = product of:
  0.019619694 = sum of:
    0.019619694 = weight(_text_:information in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019619694 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 28(1977), S.161-169

0.0024524617 = product of:
  0.019619694 = sum of:
    0.019619694 = weight(_text_:information in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019619694 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0024524617 = product of:
  0.019619694 = sum of:
    0.019619694 = weight(_text_:information in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019619694 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 16(1981), S.139-170

0.002145904 = product of:
  0.017167233 = sum of:
    0.017167233 = weight(_text_:information in 2406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017167233 = score(doc=2406,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2406, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2406)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

An information search tactic is a move made to further a search. In this article, 17 "idea tactics" are presented: tactics to help generate new ideas or solutions to problems in information searching. The focus of these tactics is psychological; they are intended to help improve the information specialist's thinking and creative processes in searching. The tactics are applicable to all kinds of situations - both bibliographical and reference searches, and in both manual and on-line systems. Research leads for the study of idea tactics are suggested, and experimental design problems associated with the testing of all sorts of search tactics are discussed

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 30(1979), S.280-289

0.0021238944 = product of:
  0.016991155 = sum of:
    0.016991155 = weight(_text_:information in 6989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016991155 = score(doc=6989,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 6989, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6989)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The forth report in a series of studies, based on the 2 year Getty Art History Information Project; where humanities scholars were trained in DIALOG online searching and then allowed 24 hour unlimited access to DIALOG. Complete transaction logs were taken and form the data upon which the Getty Online Searching Project is based. Data obtained from the study is used to draw conclusions about the design of humanities information resources, particularly databases and other online resources

0.0021238944 = product of:
  0.016991155 = sum of:
    0.016991155 = weight(_text_:information in 2056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016991155 = score(doc=2056,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 2056, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2056)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

It is argued and demonstrated that Birger Hjoerland's critiques of Marcia Bates' articles on the nature of information and the nature of browsing misrepresent the content of these articles, and further, frame the argument as a Manichean conflict between Hjørland's enlightened "discursive" and social approach versus Bates' benighted behavioral approach. It is argued that Bates' work not only contains much of value that has been ignored by Hjørland but also contains ideas that mostly complement, rather than conflict with, those of Hjørland.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.2038-2044

Theme

Information

0.0018393464 = product of:
  0.014714771 = sum of:
    0.014714771 = weight(_text_:information in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014714771 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.5, S.616

0.0017341523 = product of:
  0.013873219 = sum of:
    0.013873219 = weight(_text_:information in 7261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013873219 = score(doc=7261,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 7261, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7261)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Over a 2 year period, the Getty Information Institute (formerly the Getty Art History Information Program) sponsored and carried out a major study of end user online searching by humanities scholars. Complete logs of the searches and output were captured, and the 27 scholars involved were interviewed in depth. Reviews the study and its results, with particular emphasis on matters of interest to academic librarians. Implications are drawn for academic library reference service and collection development, as well as for cataloguing in the online and digital environment

0.0017137097 = product of:
  0.013709677 = sum of:
    0.013709677 = weight(_text_:information in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013709677 = score(doc=2707,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Getty art history information program carried out a two-year project to study how humanities scholars operate as end users of online databases. Visiting scholars at the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities in Santa Monica, California, were offered the opportunity to so unlimited subsidized searching of DIALOG databases. This first report from the project analyzes the vocabulary terms twenty-two scholars used in their natural language descriptions of their information needs and in their online searches. The data were extracted from 165 natural language statements and 1.068 search terms. Vocabulary categories used by humanities scholars were found to differ markedly from those used in the sciences, a fact that imposes distinctive demands on thesaurus development and the design of online information systems. Humanities scholars searched for far more named individuals, geographical terms, chronological terms, and discipline terms than was the case in a comparative science sample. The analysis provides substantial support for the growing perception that information needs of humanities scholars are distinct from those of scholars in other fields, and that the design of information-providing systems for these scholars must take their unique qualitites into account

0.0015173833 = product of:
  0.012139066 = sum of:
    0.012139066 = weight(_text_:information in 2160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012139066 = score(doc=2160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2160)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Discussion in the research community and among the general public regarding content indexing (especially subject indexing) and access to digital resources, especially on the Internet, has underutilized research on a variety of factors that are important in the design of such access mechanisms. Some of these factors and issues are reviewed and implications drawn for information system design in the era of electronic access. Specifically the following are discussed: Human factors: Subject searching vs. indexing, multiple terms of access, flok classification, basic level terms, and folk access; Database factors: Bradford's law, vocabulary scalability, the Resnikoff-Dolby 30:1 Rule; Domain factors: Role of domain in indexing

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.13, S.1185-1205

0.0010838453 = product of:
  0.008670762 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=4348,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Getty Art History Information Program carried out a two-year project to study how advanced humanities scholars operate as end users of online databases. Visiting scholars at the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities in Santa Monica, CA, were offered the oppotunity to do unlimited subsidized searching of DIALOG databases. This second report from the project analyzes how much searching the scholars did, the kinds of search techniques and DIALOG features they used., and their learning curves. Search features studied included commands, Boolean logic, types of vocabulary, and proximity operators. Error rates were calculated, as well as how often the scholars used elementary search formulations and introduced new search features and capabiblities into their searches. The amount of searching done ranged from none at all to dozens of hours. A typical search tended to be simple, using one-word search terms and little or no Boolean logic. Starting with a full day of DIALOG training, the scholars began their search experience at a reasonably high level of competence; in general, they maintained a stable level of competence throughout the early hours of their search experience

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 44(1993), S.273-291