Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Christensen, F.S."
  1. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.03 
    0.026575929 = product of:
  0.053151857 = sum of:
    0.053151857 = sum of:
      0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009471525 = score(doc=5237,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
    Type
    a
  2. Andersen, J.; Christensen, F.S.: Wittgenstein and indexing theory (2001) 0.00 
    0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=1590,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.
    Type
    a
  3. Christensen, F.S.: Power and the production of truth in the sciences (2000) 0.00 
    0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=101,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In order to organise and represent knowledge properly we must know how it is produced. Based on the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour, this paper analyses power structures and processes involved in the production of knowledge in the sciences. The consequences of these structures on the organisation of knowledge is shown. For any unexplained phenomenon there will be several conflicting theories. Which of these that will eventually be accepted by the greater scientific community, thus gaining the status of knowledge, is decided in scientific discourse. The author claims that gaining acceptance of a theory is not a question of being right, but of being powerful. The scientist must summon sufficient resources with which to overwhelm other theories and force them to leave the field of the domain. These resources may be material (position, economy, etc.), but it is those occurring in scientific discourse, the documents, which are of interest to information science. The paper likens the discourse to a conversation in which the documents act as statements and arguments, and as such form a language. The language philosophy of the later Wittgenstein is used to explain the principles and dynamics of scientific discourse. The paper shows that the interpretation of a document, the determination of its subject, is made by the sum of actors in the discourse. The subject of a document cannot be established by analysing it without regard to its context. Rather the subject must be deduced by looking at what other statements (documents) it uses and by how it positions itself and is positioned though use in the discourse of the discipline. In order to establish this position, a thorough understanding of the current state of the discourse and its socio-political and theoretical history is necessary. If we are to represent documents properly, we must study the disciplines and their discourse
    Type
    a

Authors

Themes