Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.07140254 = product of:
  0.17850634 = sum of:
    0.035701267 = product of:
      0.14280507 = sum of:
        0.14280507 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14280507 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30491206 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.14280507 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14280507 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30491206 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035965048 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_

0.03336306 = product of:
  0.1668153 = sum of:
    0.1668153 = weight(_text_:claude in 3721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1668153 = score(doc=3721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30083624 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035965048 = queryNorm
        0.55450535 = fieldWeight in 3721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3721)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A selection of representative definitions of information is drawn from information science and related disciplines, and discussed and compared. Defining information remains such a contested project that any claim to present a unified, singular vision of the topic would be disingenuous. Seven categories of definitions are described: Communicatory or semiotic; activity-based (i.e., information as event); propositional; structural; social; multitype; and deconstructionist. The impact of Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon is discussed, as well as the widespread influence of Karl Popper's ideas. The data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) continuum is also addressed. Work of these authors is reviewed: Marcia J. Bates, Gregory Bateson, B.C. Brookes, Michael Buckland, Ian Cornelius, Ronald Day, Richard Derr, Brenda Dervin, Fred Dretske, Jason Farradane, Christopher Fox, Bernd Frohmann, Jonathan Furner, J.A. Goguen, Robert Losee, A.D. Madden, D.M. McKay, Doede Nauta, A.D. Pratt, Frederick Thompson.

0.027802551 = product of:
  0.13901275 = sum of:
    0.13901275 = weight(_text_:claude in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13901275 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30083624 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035965048 = queryNorm
        0.4620878 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An analogy is established between the syntagm and paradigm from Saussurean linguistics and the message and messages for selection from the information theory initiated by Claude Shannon. The analogy is pursued both as an end in itself and for its analytic value in understanding patterns of retrieval from full-text systems. The multivalency of individual words when isolated from their syntagm is contrasted with the relative stability of meaning of multiword sequences, when searching ordinary written discourse. The syntagm is understood as the linear sequence of oral and written language. Saussure's understanding of the word, as a unit that compels recognition by the mind, is endorsed, although not regarded as final. The lesser multivalency of multiword sequences is understood as the greater determination of signification by the extended syntagm. The paradigm is primarily understood as the network of associations a word acquires when considered apart from the syntagm. The restriction of information theory to expression or signals, and its focus on the combinatorial aspects of the message, is sustained. The message in the model of communication in information theory can include sequences of written language. Shannon's understanding of the written word, as a cohesive group of letters, with strong internal statistical influences, is added to the Saussurean conception. Sequences of more than one word are regarded as weakly correlated concatenations of cohesive units.

0.027802551 = product of:
  0.13901275 = sum of:
    0.13901275 = weight(_text_:claude in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13901275 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30083624 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035965048 = queryNorm
        0.4620878 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The study of interhuman communication requires a more complex framework than Claude E. Shannon's (1948) mathematical theory of communication because "information" is defined in the latter case as meaningless uncertainty. Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon's theory by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchanges in reflexive communications. The information is redundant because it is based on "pure sets" (i.e., without subtraction of mutual information in the overlaps). We show that in the three-dimensional case (e.g., of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information (Rxyz = Txyz); but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions and proceed to the interpretation. Using Niklas Luhmann's (1984-1995) social systems theory and/or Anthony Giddens's (1979, 1984) structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: Different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of ("absent") options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann's "functional (sub)systems" of expectations or Giddens's "rule-resource sets" are positioned mutually, but coupled operationally in events or "instantiated" in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation, but the "structures" are (re-)positioned toward one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. The structural differences among the coding and decoding algorithms provide a source of additional options in reflexive and anticipatory communications.

0.027802551 = product of:
  0.13901275 = sum of:
    0.13901275 = weight(_text_:claude in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13901275 = score(doc=3395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30083624 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035965048 = queryNorm
        0.4620878 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An intuitive understanding of information concerns the means by which knowledge is acquired. This notion corresponds to an instantiation of the complementary properties of 'being informative' and 'being informed'. It is in this intuitive sense that the term 'information' is used in many accounts of verbal communication and explicit learning. But the term is furthermore prominent in accounts of genetics, neurobiology and cognitive science, as well as in communications engineering, and computer sciences. In view of this transdisciplinary use of the word 'information', some theoreticians hope for a unified conception that would serve as a common denominator in interdisciplinary investigations. According to this promise, we would then be equipped with a singular conceptional grasp on physical and genetic structures, on neuronal patterns as well as on cognitive and communicative events. Unfortunately, a unified concept of information is far from being spelled out, since many of the disciplines mentioned above follow quite different approaches. Even in the context of 'information science' itself, extensive differences prevail on the notions of data, information and knowledge and their conceptual interconnections. But if we detect not a single but various conceptions of information, we should not expect a single but various theories of information - a point made by Claude Shannon long before the transdisciplinary implementation of his mathematical theory. When one or the other 'theory of information' gets implemented into theories of communication or learning, for example, these theories thereby inherit one particular conception of information.

0.019461786 = product of:
  0.097308934 = sum of:
    0.097308934 = weight(_text_:claude in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097308934 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30083624 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035965048 = queryNorm
        0.32346147 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Does information science have a theory of information? There seems to be a tendency within information science to seek a theory of information, but the search is apparently unproductive (Hjoerland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999). This review brings together work from inside and outside the field of information science, showing that other perspectives an information theory could be of assistance. Constructivist claims that emphasize the uniqueness of the individual experience of information, maintaining that there is no information independent of our social practices (Cornelius, 1996a), are also mentioned. Such a position would be echoed in a symbolic interactionist approach. Conventionally, the history of attempts to develop a theory of information date from the publication of Claude Shannon's work in 1948, and his joint publication of that work with an essay by Warren Weaver in 1949 (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963). Information science found itself alongside many other disciplines attempting to develop a theory of information (Machlup & Mansfield, 1983). From Weaver's essay stems the claim that the basic concepts of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication, which Shannon later referred to as a theory of information, can be applied in disciplines outside electrical engineering, even in the social sciences.

0.01668153 = product of:
  0.08340765 = sum of:
    0.08340765 = weight(_text_:claude in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08340765 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30083624 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035965048 = queryNorm
        0.27725267 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.364683 = idf(docFreq=27, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.

0.0077964277 = product of:
  0.038982138 = sum of:
    0.038982138 = product of:
      0.077964276 = sum of:
        0.077964276 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077964276 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.0068218745 = product of:
  0.034109373 = sum of:
    0.034109373 = product of:
      0.068218745 = sum of:
        0.068218745 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068218745 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.5, S.373-383

0.0067519047 = product of:
  0.033759523 = sum of:
    0.033759523 = product of:
      0.06751905 = sum of:
        0.06751905 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06751905 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

0.0048727677 = product of:
  0.024363838 = sum of:
    0.024363838 = product of:
      0.048727676 = sum of:
        0.048727676 = weight(_text_:22 in 5735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048727676 = score(doc=5735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Managing information. 3(1996) no.6, S.22-23

0.0048727677 = product of:
  0.024363838 = sum of:
    0.024363838 = product of:
      0.048727676 = sum of:
        0.048727676 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048727676 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

0.0048727677 = product of:
  0.024363838 = sum of:
    0.024363838 = product of:
      0.048727676 = sum of:
        0.048727676 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048727676 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 8.2022 19:22:57

0.004823794 = product of:
  0.02411897 = sum of:
    0.02411897 = product of:
      0.04823794 = sum of:
        0.04823794 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04823794 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.0038982139 = product of:
  0.019491069 = sum of:
    0.019491069 = product of:
      0.038982138 = sum of:
        0.038982138 = weight(_text_:22 in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038982138 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3901, 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=3901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

11. 4.1996 14:22:40

0.0038982139 = product of:
  0.019491069 = sum of:
    0.019491069 = product of:
      0.038982138 = sum of:
        0.038982138 = weight(_text_:22 in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038982138 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 668, 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=668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information world review. 1997, no.130, S.22

0.0038982139 = product of:
  0.019491069 = sum of:
    0.019491069 = product of:
      0.038982138 = sum of:
        0.038982138 = weight(_text_:22 in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038982138 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2485, 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=2485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3. 1.1999 14:40:22

0.0038982139 = product of:
  0.019491069 = sum of:
    0.019491069 = product of:
      0.038982138 = sum of:
        0.038982138 = weight(_text_:22 in 3696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038982138 = score(doc=3696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3696, 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=3696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:55:13

0.0038982139 = product of:
  0.019491069 = sum of:
    0.019491069 = product of:
      0.038982138 = sum of:
        0.038982138 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038982138 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

0.0034109373 = product of:
  0.017054686 = sum of:
    0.017054686 = product of:
      0.034109373 = sum of:
        0.034109373 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034109373 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12594347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035965048 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 2.1999 20:10:22