Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024905367 = product of:
  0.049810734 = sum of:
    0.049810734 = product of:
      0.24905366 = sum of:
        0.24905366 = weight(_text_:author's in 7246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24905366 = score(doc=7246,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2964857 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.84001917 = fieldWeight in 7246, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7246)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The author's experiences as a master's and doctoral student at the University of California at Berkeley School of Library and Information Studies during a formative period in the history of information science, 1966-71, are described. The relationship between documentation and information science as experienced in that program is discussed, as well as the various influences, both social and intellectual, that shaped the author's understanding of information science at that time.

0.017161837 = product of:
  0.034323674 = sum of:
    0.034323674 = product of:
      0.06864735 = sum of:
        0.06864735 = weight(_text_:i in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06864735 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16640453 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent article by McKay et al. on browsing (2019) provides a valuable addition to the empirical literature of information science on this topic, and I read the descriptions of the various browsing cases with interest. However, the authors refer to my article on browsing (Bates, 2007) in ways that do not make sense to me and which do not at all conform to what I actually said.

0.014793559 = product of:
  0.029587118 = sum of:
    0.029587118 = product of:
      0.059174236 = sum of:
        0.059174236 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059174236 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15449683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.011955 = product of:
  0.02391 = sum of:
    0.02391 = product of:
      0.04782 = sum of:
        0.04782 = weight(_text_:22 in 7181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04782 = score(doc=7181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15449683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 4.1997 20:22:55

0.01100672 = product of:
  0.02201344 = sum of:
    0.02201344 = product of:
      0.1100672 = sum of:
        0.1100672 = weight(_text_:author's in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1100672 = score(doc=4773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2964857 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a recent article, Birger Hjørland (2007) critiqued the author's efforts in defining and conceptualizing information as a core concept in information science (Bates, 2005, 2006). It is argued that Hjørland has seriously misrepresented and confused the actual line of argument in those articles. Specifics of that case are presented, and the reader is urged to return to the original Bates articles to understand her claims. In those articles, Bates attempted to develop a broad conception of information, as well as a number of subtypes of information, for use in the field of information science. The development of information was related to evolutionary processes, with emergence as a significant theme.

0.009806764 = product of:
  0.019613529 = sum of:
    0.019613529 = product of:
      0.039227057 = sum of:
        0.039227057 = weight(_text_:i in 4045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039227057 = score(doc=4045,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16640453 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.2357331 = fieldWeight in 4045, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4045)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Throughout most of human history, people got the information they needed for their lives more or less automatically and unthinkingly--through people they talked with, and from their own life experiences. Today, we are inundated with information but often know little about how to find our way through the vast sea of recorded knowledge to get to what we really want and need. In the information sciences researchers have thought a great deal about information seeking, and have studied people in the grip of trying to satisfy an information need. Much has been learned about how to enable comfortable and fun information searching in human, paper, and digital environments. Professor Marcia Bates of UCLA's Department of Information Studies has collected fifteen of her major papers on information searching in theory and practice in this volume. The articles address many aspects of searching for information, including searching tactics and techniques, the "vocabulary problem" in online searching, the kinds of indexing terms to use in various contexts, the Bradford Distribution and its effects on searching in large databases, the true nature of browsing, and how to design computer interfaces for successful searching. For all the variety in types of information systems, the human being interacting with an information source is remarkably stable in psychology and behavior. These human traits and system features are explored in depth in this book. Bates' popular articles, "What is Browsing--Really?" and "The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface," are included. This is Volume II of three containing selected works by Bates. The others are titled: Information and the Information Professions (Vol. I) and Information Users and Information System Design (Vol. III)

0.00896625 = product of:
  0.0179325 = sum of:
    0.0179325 = product of:
      0.035865 = sum of:
        0.035865 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035865 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15449683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23

0.0074718758 = product of:
  0.0149437515 = sum of:
    0.0149437515 = product of:
      0.029887503 = sum of:
        0.029887503 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029887503 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15449683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.

0.006934429 = product of:
  0.013868858 = sum of:
    0.013868858 = product of:
      0.027737716 = sum of:
        0.027737716 = weight(_text_:i in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027737716 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16640453 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04411889 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0002. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.