Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009484224 = product of:
  0.028452672 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=888,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 888, 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=888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Scholarly publications are often regarded as "information" by default. They are collected, organized, preserved, and made accessible as knowledge records. However, the instances of article retraction, misconduct and malpractices of researchers and the replication crisis have raised concerns about the informativeness and evidential qualities of information. Among many factors, knowledge production has moved away from "normal science" under the systemic influences of platformization involving the datafication and commodification of scholarly articles, research profiles and research activities. This article aims to understand the platformization of information by examining how research practices and knowledge production are steered by market and platform mechanisms in four ways: (a) ownership of information; (b) metrics for sale; (c) relevance by metrics, and (d) market-based competition. In conclusion, the article argues that information is platformized when platforms hold the dominating power in determining what kinds of information can be disseminated and rewarded and when informativeness is decoupled from the normative agreement or consensus co-constructed and co-determined in an open and public discourse.

Date

22. 1.2023 19:01:47

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=390,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 390, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=390)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Mixed methods research (MMR) has been described as the third research paradigm that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods. The mixing of research methods requires an epistemological framework that embraces the "reality" uncovered by different research methods. Three formal ontological categories are introduced for deconstructing the polarized view of reality in objectivism and relativism and for differentiating the nature and characteristics of objective, subjective, and normative validity claims as well as the conditions for justifying "objectivity" in social research. The characterization of "information" as objective, subjective, and normative-evaluative simultaneously demands the study of conditions of information-related phenomena that may call for mixed methods research in library and information science.

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=88,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 88, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=88)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The impact of frame semantic enrichment of texts on the task of factoid question answering (QA) is studied in this paper. In particular, we consider different techniques for answer processing with frame semantics: the level of semantic class identification and role assignment to texts, and the fusion of frame semantic-based answer-processing approaches with other methods used in the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC). The impact of each of these aspects on the overall performance of a QA system is analyzed in this paper. The TREC 2004 and TREC 2006 factoid question sets were used for the experiments. These demonstrate that the exploitation of encapsulated frame semantics in FrameNet in a shallow semantic parsing process can enhance answer-processing performance in factoid QA systems. This improvement is dependent on the level of semantic annotation, the frame semantic alignment method, and the method of fusing frame semantic-based answer-processing models with other existing models. A more comprehensively annotated environment with all different part-of-speech target predicates provides a higher chance of correct factoid answer retrieval where semantic alignment is based on both semantic classes and a relaxed set of semantic roles for answer span identification. Our experiments on fusion techniques of frame semantic-based and entity-based answer-processing models show that merging answer lists with respect to their scores and redundancy by exploiting a fusion function leads to a more effective overall factoid QA system compared to the use of individual models.

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=232,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article addresses the question "what is information?" by comparing the meaning of the term "information" and epistemological assumptions of three theories in library and information science: the "Shannon-Weaver model," Brookes' interpretation of Popper's World 3, and the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom model. It shows that the term "information" in these theories refers to empirical entities or events and is conceptualized as having causal powers upon human minds. It is argued that the epistemological assumptions have led to the negligence of the cultural and social aspects of the constitution of information (i.e., how something is considered to be and not to be information) and the unquestioned nature of science in research methodologies.

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=5710,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss Luciano Floridi's 2019 book The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design, the latest instalment in his philosophy of information (PI) tetralogy, particularly with respect to its implications for library and information studies (LIS). Design/methodology/approach Nine scholars with research interests in philosophy and LIS read and responded to the book, raising critical and heuristic questions in the spirit of scholarly dialogue. Floridi responded to these questions. Findings Floridi's PI, including this latest publication, is of interest to LIS scholars, and much insight can be gained by exploring this connection. It seems also that LIS has the potential to contribute to PI's further development in some respects. Research limitations/implications Floridi's PI work is technical philosophy for which many LIS scholars do not have the training or patience to engage with, yet doing so is rewarding. This suggests a role for translational work between philosophy and LIS. Originality/value The book symposium format, not yet seen in LIS, provides forum for sustained, multifaceted and generative dialogue around ideas.

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=176,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to understand the nature of citations and metrics in the larger system of knowledge production involving universities, funding agencies, publishers, and indexing and data analytic services. Design/methodology/approach First, the normative and social constructivist views of citations are reviewed to be understood as co-existing conditions. Second, metrics are examined through the processes of commensuration by tracing the meanings of metrics embedded in various kinds of documents and contexts. Third, the steering effects of citations and metrics on knowledge production are discussed. Finally, the conclusion addresses questions pertaining to the validity and legitimacy of citations as data and their implications for knowledge production and the conception of information. Findings The normative view of citations is understood as an ideal speech situation; the social constructivist view of citation is recognised in the system of knowledge production where citing motivations are influenced by epistemic, social and political factors. When organisational performances are prioritised and generate system imperatives, motives of competition become dominant in shaping citing behaviour, which can deviate from the norms and values in the academic lifeworld. As a result, citations and metrics become a non-linguistic steering medium rather than evidence of research quality and impact. Originality/value This paper contributes to the understanding of the nature of citations and metrics and their implications for the conception of information and knowledge production.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=5539,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5539, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5539)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Can information be objective and/or subjective? Based on Patrick Wilson's notion of public knowledge and a story of a sign on a tree, this paper argues that private information is not the same as subjective information, and that the very communicative process of making information makes information objective. It also argues that the objective sense of information-public knowledge-has been and will be most relevant to information science, hence questions concerning collective responsibility in collecting, preserving, and organizing information shall be considered.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.