Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Information"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Malsburg, C. von der: Concerning the neuronal code (2018) 0.03 
    0.02997284 = product of:
  0.05994568 = sum of:
    0.05994568 = sum of:
      0.029520772 = weight(_text_:c in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029520772 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037426826 = queryNorm
          0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
      0.03042491 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03042491 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037426826 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 73, 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=73)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27.12.2020 16:56:22
  2. Weitzendorf, T.; Wigand, R.: Cultural influences on information quality (2015) 0.02 
    0.017395282 = product of:
  0.034790564 = sum of:
    0.034790564 = product of:
      0.06958113 = sum of:
        0.06958113 = weight(_text_:c in 2983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06958113 = score(doc=2983,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.5389696 = fieldWeight in 2983, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
  3. Swigon, M.: Information limits : definition, typology and types (2011) 0.01 
    0.010141637 = product of:
  0.020283274 = sum of:
    0.020283274 = product of:
      0.04056655 = sum of:
        0.04056655 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04056655 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, 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=300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    12. 7.2011 18:22:52
  4. Badia, A.: Data, information, knowledge : an information science analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.008873932 = product of:
  0.017747864 = sum of:
    0.017747864 = product of:
      0.03549573 = sum of:
        0.03549573 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03549573 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16. 6.2014 19:22:57
  5. Voigt, U.: With Aristotle towards a differentiated concept of information? (2014) 0.01 
    0.008697641 = product of:
  0.017395282 = sum of:
    0.017395282 = product of:
      0.034790564 = sum of:
        0.034790564 = weight(_text_:c in 3396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034790564 = score(doc=3396,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 3396, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3396)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We are talking about 'information' in many different contexts: not only in our ordinary language, but also in the highly specialized discourses of the theory of communication, computer science, physics, biology, cultural studies, and so forth. As we do so, are we using the same concept each and every time? Is there one and only one concept of information connecting all these different usages of one word (and its linguistic 'relatives' in languages other than English)? This question has accompanied the 'information talk' for many years and recently has lead to the so-called 'Capurro trilemma'. According to this trilemma, throughout those various contexts the words we use either (A) have the same meaning or (B) completely different meanings or (C) different meanings which nevertheless are somehow connected. As the unity of meaning is a minimal condition for the identity of a concept, in case (A) there is only one concept of information (univocity); in case (B) we deal with several concepts of information (equivocation); in case (C) it is the question of just precisely how the different concepts are interconnected. The authors describing the dilemma suggest Wittgensteinian family resemblance and Aristotelian analogy, but they do not seem to be satisfied by their solutions. Therefore, according to them, we are facing a real trilemma whose single horns are equally unattractive.
  6. Zhang, P.; Soergel, D.: Towards a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking (2014) 0.01 
    0.0063385232 = product of:
  0.0126770465 = sum of:
    0.0126770465 = product of:
      0.025354093 = sum of:
        0.025354093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025354093 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:55:39
  7. Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018) 0.01 
    0.0063385232 = product of:
  0.0126770465 = sum of:
    0.0126770465 = product of:
      0.025354093 = sum of:
        0.025354093 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025354093 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    29. 9.2018 11:22:09
  8. Albright, K.: Multidisciplinarity in information behavior : expanding boundaries or fragmentation of the field? (2010) 0.01 
    0.0063385232 = product of:
  0.0126770465 = sum of:
    0.0126770465 = product of:
      0.025354093 = sum of:
        0.025354093 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025354093 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5077, 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=5077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16. 3.2019 17:32:22
  9. Cole, C.: ¬A theory of information need for information retrieval that connects information to knowledge (2011) 0.01 
    0.0061501605 = product of:
  0.012300321 = sum of:
    0.012300321 = product of:
      0.024600642 = sum of:
        0.024600642 = weight(_text_:c in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024600642 = score(doc=4474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  10. Wu, L.-L.; Huang, M.-H.; Chen, C.-Y.: Citation patterns of the pre-web and web-prevalent environments : the moderating effects of domain knowledge (2012) 0.01 
    0.0061501605 = product of:
  0.012300321 = sum of:
    0.012300321 = product of:
      0.024600642 = sum of:
        0.024600642 = weight(_text_:c in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024600642 = score(doc=537,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  11. Almeida, C.C. de; Lopes Fujita, M.S.; Reis, D.M. dos: Peircean semiotics and subject indexing : contributions of speculative grammar and pure logic (2013) 0.01 
    0.0061501605 = product of:
  0.012300321 = sum of:
    0.012300321 = product of:
      0.024600642 = sum of:
        0.024600642 = weight(_text_:c in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024600642 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The semiotics of C. S. Peirce presents fundamental concepts to discover aspects of the indexing process, including representation and classes of signs. However, we still know little of its theoretical potential for subject indexing. We believe that the main difficulty in the proposals to understand the process of subject indexing based on Peircean semiotics stems from an incomplete interpretation of his semiotic system. This paper attempts to describe the contributions of Peircean semiotics to subject indexing. First, we analyze some of the concepts of the branches of semiotics, after which, we discuss strategies for conceptual approximation. Secondly, and aiming to raise the level of interlocution between the areas, we intend to argue that subject indexing is an inferential process, as explained by the second branch of semiotics. Thus, we seek to go beyond the level of speculative grammar, the first branch of semiotics, to forge a closer link with pure or critical logic, the second branch. We conclude that the indexer's work does not produce a mere reflection of what already exists in documents, but involves an instigating action to discover, through the inferential matrix, the meaning of a text in order to find the subject and the most a ppropriate subject added entry to the information system.
  12. Gnoli, C.; Ridi, C.R.: Unified Theory of Information, hypertextuality and levels of reality : without, within, and withal knowledge management (2014) 0.01 
    0.0061501605 = product of:
  0.012300321 = sum of:
    0.012300321 = product of:
      0.024600642 = sum of:
        0.024600642 = weight(_text_:c in 1796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024600642 = score(doc=1796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1796, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  13. Dinneen, J.D.; Brauner, C.: Practical and philosophical considerations for defining information as well-formed, meaningful data in the information sciences (2015) 0.01 
    0.0061501605 = product of:
  0.012300321 = sum of:
    0.012300321 = product of:
      0.024600642 = sum of:
        0.024600642 = weight(_text_:c in 5528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024600642 = score(doc=5528,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5528, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  14. Huvila, I.: Situational appropriation of information (2015) 0.01 
    0.0050708186 = product of:
  0.010141637 = sum of:
    0.010141637 = product of:
      0.020283274 = sum of:
        0.020283274 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020283274 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  15. Bates, M.J.: Concepts for the study of information embodiment (2018) 0.00 
    0.0049201283 = product of:
  0.009840257 = sum of:
    0.009840257 = product of:
      0.019680513 = sum of:
        0.019680513 = weight(_text_:c in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019680513 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, 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.
  16. Hartel, J.: ¬The case against Information and the Body in Library and Information Science (2018) 0.00 
    0.0030750802 = product of:
  0.0061501605 = sum of:
    0.0061501605 = product of:
      0.012300321 = sum of:
        0.012300321 = weight(_text_:c in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012300321 = score(doc=5523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.09527725 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0018. 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.

Authors