Search (57 results, page 3 of 3)

0.007507637 = product of:
  0.022522911 = sum of:
    0.022522911 = weight(_text_:im in 4510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022522911 = score(doc=4510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.15615936 = fieldWeight in 4510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4510)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Informationelle Städte sind die prototypischen Metropolen der Wissensgesellschaft. Einige sind derzeit im Entstehen (wie beispielsweise London oder New York), andere haben bereits einen beträchtlichen Reifegrad erreicht (etwa in Singapur oder Dubai). Jede Gesellschaftsepoche bringt typische Städte hervor. Denken wir an die Industriegesellschaft, so fällt vielen unweigerlich Manchester oder in Deutschland das Ruhrgebiet in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts ein, betrachten wir die Dienstleistungsgesellschaft, so wird die Wahl beispielsweise auf New Yorks Manhattan oder auf Düsseldorf fallen. Es ist die These aufgestellt worden, dass Städte und Regionen, die den Übergang zur Wissensgesellschaft nicht schaffen, als "economic deadlands" enden werden. Angesichts eines solchen Szenarios scheint es angebracht, dass die Verantwortlichen der Städte dafür Sorge tragen, die Weichen für die richtige Entwicklung frühzeitig zu stellen. Doch was heißt "richtige Entwicklung"? Wie werden die Städte der Wissensgesellschaft aussehen? Wie kann man deren Entwicklung vorantreiben? Gibt es Risiken? Ist die informationelle Stadt wirklich erstrebenswert? Hierzu möchten die Artikel in diesem Themenheft erste Antworten geben. Es gibt bereits eine Fülle an Literatur zu Städten der Wissensgesellschaft. Zu Beginn müssen wir allerdings feststellen, dass es viele Konzeptionen mit unterschiedlicher Terminologie gibt, die durchaus an eine babylonische Sprachverwirrung erinnern. Dies betrifft sowohl den Begriff "Wissensgesellschaft" als auch den der "informationellen Städte".

0.00701937 = product of:
  0.021058109 = sum of:
    0.021058109 = product of:
      0.06317432 = sum of:
        0.06317432 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06317432 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.

0.005731291 = product of:
  0.017193872 = sum of:
    0.017193872 = product of:
      0.051581617 = sum of:
        0.051581617 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051581617 = score(doc=2792,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Some documents provoke emotions in people viewing them. Will it be possible to describe emotions consistently and use this information in retrieval systems? We tested collective (statistically aggregated) emotion indexing using images as examples. Considering psychological results, basic emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness. This study follows an approach developed by Lee and Neal (2007) for music emotion retrieval and applies scroll bars for tagging basic emotions and their intensities. A sample comprising 763 persons tagged emotions caused by images (retrieved from www.Flickr.com) applying scroll bars and (linguistic) tags. Using SPSS, we performed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. For more than half of the images, the test persons have clear emotion favorites. There are prototypical images for given emotions. The document-specific consistency of tagging using a scroll bar is, for some images, very high. Most of the (most commonly used) linguistic tags are on the basic level (in the sense of Rosch's basic level theory). The distributions of the linguistic tags in our examples follow an inverse power-law. Hence, it seems possible to apply collective image emotion tagging to image information systems and to present a new search option for basic emotions. This article is one of the first steps in the research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR).

0.0048631616 = product of:
  0.014589485 = sum of:
    0.014589485 = product of:
      0.043768454 = sum of:
        0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043768454 = score(doc=210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

After modeling expert user needs with regard to intellectual property information, we analyze and compare the main providers in this specific information area (Thomson DIALOG, Esp@cenet by the European Patent Office, Questel-Orbit, and STN International) in terms of system content and system functionality. The key question is whether the main providers are able to satisfy these expert user needs. For patent information, some special retrieval features such as chemical structure search (including Markush search), patent family references and citations search, biosequence search, and basic informetric functionality such as ranking, mapping, and visualization of information flows are realized. Considering the results of information science research, the practice of patent information shows unexhausted improvement opportunities (e.g., the application of bibliographic patent coupling and co-patent-citation for mapping patents, patent assignees, and technology specialties). For trademark search, users need multiple truncated search (realized) as well as phonetic search and image retrieval (not realized yet).

0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.004585033 = product of:
  0.013755098 = sum of:
    0.013755098 = product of:
      0.041265294 = sum of:
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=4891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Nur wenige Dokumentationsmethoden werden mit dem Namen ihrer Entwickler assoziiert. Ausnahmen sind Melvil Dewey (DDC), S.R. Ranganathan (Colon Classification) - und Norbert Henrichs. Seine Textwortmethode ermöglicht die Indexierung und das Retrieval von Literatur aus Fachgebieten, die keine allseits akzeptierte Fachterminologie vorweisen, also viele Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften, vorneweg die Philosophie. Für den Einsatz in der elektronischen Philosophie-Dokumentation hat Henrichs in den späten sechziger Jahren die Textwortmethode entworfen. Er ist damit nicht nur einer der Pioniere der Anwendung der elektronischen Datenverarbeitung in der Informationspraxis, sondern auch der Pionier bei der Dokumentation terminologisch nicht starrer Fachsprachen

0.004585033 = product of:
  0.013755098 = sum of:
    0.013755098 = product of:
      0.041265294 = sum of:
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There are at least three possible ways that documents are distributed by relevance: informetric (power law), inverse logistic, and dichotomous. The nature of the type of distribution has implications for the construction of relevance ranking algorithms for search engines, for automated (blind) relevance feedback, for user behavior when using Web search engines, for combining of outputs of search engines for metasearch, for topic detection and tracking, and for the methodology of evaluation of information retrieval systems.

0.004585033 = product of:
  0.013755098 = sum of:
    0.013755098 = product of:
      0.041265294 = sum of:
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=559,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 559, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=559)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Einleitungsartikel zu einem Themenheft. Informationswissenschaft umfasst als Kerndisziplinen Information Retrieval, Wissensrepräsentation, Informetrie (einschließlich Web Science), Wissensmanagement und die Erforschung von Informations- bzw. Wissensgesellschaft und der Informationsmärkte (Stock & Stock, 2012). In vielen Forschungsprojekten befassen sich Informationswissenschaftler mit Themen, die auch von anderen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen bearbeitet werden. Informationswissenschaft ist also durchaus (auch) eine interdisziplinäre Angelegenheit. Dieses Themenheft von IWP stellt die Interdisziplinarität von Informationswissenschaft anhand von Beispielen der Forschungsergebnisse aus Düsseldorf in den Vordergrund.

0.004052635 = product of:
  0.012157904 = sum of:
    0.012157904 = product of:
      0.03647371 = sum of:
        0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03647371 = score(doc=295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.

0.004038437 = product of:
  0.01211531 = sum of:
    0.01211531 = product of:
      0.03634593 = sum of:
        0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 3540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03634593 = score(doc=3540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 3540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3540)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wenn ein Unternehmen oder eine Forschungseinrichtung externe Informationen benötigt, so gibt es eine interne Lösung, die Einrichtung entsprechender informationswirtschaftlicher Infrastruktur, sowie das Outsourcing, derzeit meist das Ansprechen eines professionellen Information Broker. Gibt es bei der externen Lösung Alternativen, insbesondere der kostengünstigen Art? Wenn eine Privatperson ein Informationsproblem hat, wer fungiert als professioneller Ansprechpartner? Zur Zeit gibt es nur wenige für jedermann bezahlbare Möglichkeiten, sich Informationen aus kommerzeillen Online-Archiven beschaffen zu lassen oder selbst zu recherchieren. Aber gibt es denn dan nicht eine Institution, die eigentlich seit ihren Anfängen für Informationsvermittlung zuständig ist? Und die diese Aufgabe - ebenfalls seit ihren Anfängen - kostenlos durchführt, und dies für jedermann? Der 'Auskunftsdienst' der Bibliotheken ist in der Tat eine solche Einrichtung

0.004011904 = product of:
  0.012035711 = sum of:
    0.012035711 = product of:
      0.03610713 = sum of:
        0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610713 = score(doc=13,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scientific documents are more or less important in relation to give subjects and this importance can be measured. An empirical investigation into philosophical information was carried out using a weighting algorithm developed by N. Henrichs which results in a distribution by weighting of documents on an average philosophical subject. With the aid of statistical methods a threshold value can be obtained that separates the important and unimportant documents on a subject. The knowledge of theis threshold value is important for various practical and theoretic questions: providing new possibilities for research strategy in information retrieval; evaluation of the 'titleworthiness' of subjects by comparison of document titles and themes for which the document at hand is important; and making available data on thematic trends for scientific results

0.004011904 = product of:
  0.012035711 = sum of:
    0.012035711 = product of:
      0.03610713 = sum of:
        0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610713 = score(doc=3396,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3396, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3396)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Seit 1983 gibt es die Arbeitsgemeinschaft Informationsvermittlung (AGI). Die AGI-Information Management Consultants, vorneweg Manfred Hauer, sind inzwischen ausgewiesene Spezialisten bei der Anwendung von Information Retrieval-Systemen. Seit 1994 bietet M. Hauer ein umfassendes Produkt an, das INFORMATION CENTER, das u.a. Elemente der Bibliotheksverwaltung, der Pressedokumentation, der Recherche, der Adreßverwaltung und des Publizierens miteinander verbindet. Durch den aktuellen Umstieg der Basis-Software, Lotus, auf die neue IBM-Suchmaschine GTR hat eine Betrachtung von INFORMATION CENTER besondere Relevanz, erreichen wir doch nunmehr einen Bereich, der von Informatikern und Beratern mit 'Knowledge Management' umschrieben wird. Damit wäre INFORMATION CENTER das erste deutsche Knowledge Management-Produkt auf einer umfassenden informationswissenschaftlichen Basis. Wird es einem solchen Anspruch gerecht?

0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4452, 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=4452)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3. 7.2011 19:22:49

0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0028656456 = product of:
  0.008596936 = sum of:
    0.008596936 = product of:
      0.025790809 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Concept-based information retrieval and knowledge representation are in need of a theory of concepts and semantic relations. Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of knowledge organization systems (KOS) (such as ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 in the U.S.A. or DIN 2331:1980 in Germany) do not consider results of concept theory and theory of relations to the full extent. They are not able to unify the currently different worlds of traditional controlled vocabularies, of the social web (tagging and folksonomies) and of the semantic web (ontologies). Concept definitions as well as semantic relations are based on epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and critical theory). A concept is determined via its intension and extension as well as by definition. We will meet the problem of vagueness by introducing prototypes. Some important definitions are concept explanations (after Aristotle) and the definition of family resemblances (in the sense of Wittgenstein). We will model concepts as frames (according to Barsalou). The most important paradigmatic relation in KOS is hierarchy, which must be arranged into different classes: Hyponymy consists of taxonomy and simple hyponymy, meronymy consists of many different part-whole-relations. For practical application purposes, the transitivity of the given relation is very important. Unspecific associative relations are of little help to our focused applications and should be replaced by generalizable and domain-specific relations. We will discuss the reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity of paradigmatic relations as well as the appearance of specific semantic relations in the different kinds of KOS (folksonomies, nomenclatures, classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies). Finally, we will pick out KOS as a central theme of the Semantic Web.

0.0028656456 = product of:
  0.008596936 = sum of:
    0.008596936 = product of:
      0.025790809 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=2784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2784)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Dealing with information is one of the vital skills in the 21st century. It takes a fair degree of information savvy to create, represent and supply information as well as to search for and retrieve relevant knowledge. How does information (documents, pieces of knowledge) have to be organized in order to be retrievable? What role does metadata play? What are search engines on the Web, or in corporate intranets, and how do they work? How must one deal with natural language processing and tools of knowledge organization, such as thesauri, classification systems, and ontologies? How useful is social tagging? How valuable are intellectually created abstracts and automatically prepared extracts? Which empirical methods allow for user research and which for the evaluation of information systems? This Handbook is a basic work of information science, providing a comprehensive overview of the current state of information retrieval and knowledge representation. It addresses readers from all professions and scientific disciplines, but particularly scholars, practitioners and students of Information Science, Library Science, Computer Science, Information Management, and Knowledge Management. This Handbook is a suitable reference work for Public and Academic Libraries.

0.0022925164 = product of:
  0.006877549 = sum of:
    0.006877549 = product of:
      0.020632647 = sum of:
        0.020632647 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020632647 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.