Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.057888947 = product of:
  0.115777895 = sum of:
    0.09033708 = weight(_text_:term in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09033708 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.41242266 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to organize the extensive field and to compile the complete list of information limits. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough analysis of literature from the field beginning with the 1960s up to the present has been performed. Findings - A universal typology of information limits has been proposed. A list of barriers mentioned in the literature of the subject has been compiled. Research limitations/implications - The term "information limits" is not commonly used. Originality/value - The complete list of information limits with bibliographical hints (helpful for future research) is presented.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

0.027946608 = product of:
  0.11178643 = sum of:
    0.11178643 = weight(_text_:term in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11178643 = score(doc=232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.510347 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0269785 = product of:
  0.107914 = sum of:
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 1774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=1774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 1774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1774)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the flood of information that is inundating us. This flood makes it increasingly difficult to make sense of the world and arrive at the correct interpretation of events. Design/methodology/approach - Classic narrative literature review applying the dosage metaphor to the growing problem of information overload. Findings - The seven elements of dosage - amount, frequency, sequencing, delivery systems, contraindications, interactions, and dysfunctions - are used to discuss four major coping mechanisms - escape, attention, delegation, and creative destruction - for dealing with the flood. Each of the coping mechanisms has different entailments for the dosage elements. Originality/value - This essay develops a guiding principle for thinking about how we should cope with this central problem of the information age: suggesting a minimalist approach that offers the hope of clarity in acting in an age that increasingly overwhelms us.

0.019961866 = product of:
  0.07984746 = sum of:
    0.07984746 = weight(_text_:term in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07984746 = score(doc=3395,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.3645336 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.019761236 = product of:
  0.079044946 = sum of:
    0.079044946 = weight(_text_:term in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079044946 = score(doc=1853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.36086982 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 5542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=5542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 5542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5542)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Librarians once were futurists. Our everyday activities hinged on a set of practices and theories directed toward known, although distant, outcomes. What was the term of our mandate to provide access to the cultural heritage in our trust? Essentially forever. We included new media formats as a matter of course, with necessary preservation, conservation, curation, and archiving. Many and multivaried constraints strained our knowledge industries, yet our vision embraced unprecedented growth in creation, acquisition, collection, indexing, digesting, abstracting, finding, delivery, and research. Our group intellectual capacity accommodated complexities of kind, scope, identity, and audience. We could budget, plan, and serve despite limitations on funding, cooperation, and support. Librarians understood one another globally, even as libraries became known as repositories of things rather than as organizations of people. Something happened along the way to the future: in sustaining our status of authority, we became ubiquitous, and in our passion to extol our mindset, we became universal.

0.014115169 = product of:
  0.056460675 = sum of:
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 1796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=1796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 1796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1796)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The different senses of the term information in physical, biological and social interpretations, and the possibility of connections between them, are addressed. Special attention is paid to Hofkirchner's Unified Theory of Information (UTI), proposing an integrated view in which the notion of information gets additional properties as one moves from the physical to the biological and the social realms. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - UTI is compared to other views of information, especially to two theories complementing several ideas of it: the theory of the hypertextual documental universe ("docuverse") and the theory of integrative levels of reality. Two alternative applications of the complex of these three theories are discussed: a pragmatical, hermeneutic one, and a more ambitious realist, ontological one. The latter can be extended until considering information ("bit") together with matter-energy ("it") as a fundamental element in the world. Problems and opportunities with each view are discussed. Findings - It is found that the common ground for all three theories is an evolutionary approach, paying attention to the phylogenetic connections between the different meanings of information. Research limitations/implications - Other theories of information, like Leontiev's, are not discussed as not especially related to the focus of the approach. Originality/value - The paper builds on previously unnoticed affinities between different families of information-related theories, showing how each of them can provide fruitful complements to the other ones in clarifying the nature of information.

0.011857167 = product of:
  0.047428668 = sum of:
    0.047428668 = product of:
      0.094857335 = sum of:
        0.094857335 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094857335 = score(doc=5537,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 5537, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses differing perspectives relevant to library and information studies (LIS) regarding the philosophy of information, primarily disparate accounts of ontology. The perspectives include, but are not limited to, those of Luciano Floridi, Raphael Capurro, Michael Eldred, applied ontologists like Pierre Grenon and Barry Smith, Fred Fonseca, and Bernd Frohmann. Slavoj Zizek's parallax ontology is used as a leitmotif and theoretical frame to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of differing standpoints on ontological issues within LIS and the philosophy of information. Parallax ontology is presented not as a replacement for any particular perspective but rather as a means to utilize the differing points of view. The antinomies within and between these perspectives are not overcome through some kind of synthesis but instead disclose the fundamentally irreconcilable nature of the topic of ontology itself, particularly within LIS and the philosophy of information. The paper concludes with an assessment of the importance of this type of research, and the topics of ontology and the philosophy of information in particular.

0.011292135 = product of:
  0.04516854 = sum of:
    0.04516854 = weight(_text_:term in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04516854 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.20621133 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which Year Seven students, teachers and teacher-librarians, in three rural Australian state schools, would value question formulation as an information literacy skill. Question formulation is defined here as students independently formulating their own questions for curricular assignments. It also aimed to evaluate the extent to which these students would transfer question formulation across subjects and across time. The study used a constructivist grounded theory approach and data were analysed using constructivist grounded analysis. The findings of the study indicated that most students, teachers and teacher-librarians valued question formulation as an information literacy skill, but that this value was often limited in scope, e.g. only in relation to information retrieval. Some students, and most teachers and teacher-librarians, saw extensive value in question formulation and took a more holistic view, e.g. linking question formulation with assignment writing. A small minority of students did not value question formulation as they found it a difficult concept. Students used written questions when required to do so by teachers but some students preferred to develop mental questions when doing assignments. There was some clear evidence of transfer, in that some students applied what they had learned about question formulation in a previous term to a new subject assignment. On the other hand, many other students did not transfer what they had learned, and the evidence showed that this was either because they did not understand the concept of transfer (a small minority), or that they lacked motivation to transfer, or that they expected the teacher and/or teacher-librarian to tell them to formulate their own questions. It was clear from the study that there was no culture of transfer in these schools and that this made it unlikely that students, apart from a well-motivated minority, would transfer skills.

0.011292135 = product of:
  0.04516854 = sum of:
    0.04516854 = weight(_text_:term in 5080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04516854 = score(doc=5080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.20621133 = fieldWeight in 5080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5080)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which Year Seven students, teachers and teacher-librarians, in three rural Australian state schools, would value question formulation as an information literacy skill. Question formulation is defined here as students independently formulating their own questions for curricular assignments. It also aimed to evaluate the extent to which these students would transfer question formulation across subjects and across time. The study used a constructivist grounded theory approach and data were analysed using constructivist grounded analysis. The findings of the study indicated that most students, teachers and teacher-librarians valued question formulation as an information literacy skill, but that this value was often limited in scope, e.g. only in relation to information retrieval. Some students, and most teachers and teacher-librarians, saw extensive value in question formulation and took a more holistic view, e.g. linking question formulation with assignment writing. A small minority of students did not value question formulation as they found it a difficult concept. Students used written questions when required to do so by teachers but some students preferred to develop mental questions when doing assignments. There was some clear evidence of transfer, in that some students applied what they had learned about question formulation in a previous term to a new subject assignment. On the other hand, many other students did not transfer what they had learned, and the evidence showed that this was either because they did not understand the concept of transfer (a small minority), or that they lacked motivation to transfer, or that they expected the teacher and/or teacher-librarian to tell them to formulate their own questions. It was clear from the study that there was no culture of transfer in these schools and that this made it unlikely that students, apart from a well-motivated minority, would transfer skills.

0.010893034 = product of:
  0.021786068 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

0.009880973 = product of:
  0.039523892 = sum of:
    0.039523892 = product of:
      0.079047784 = sum of:
        0.079047784 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079047784 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This exploratory study contributes to research on relevance assessment by specifying criteria that are used in the judgment of information quality and credibility in Internet discussion forums. To this end, 4,739 messages posted to 160 Finnish discussion threads were analyzed. Of the messages, 20.5% contained explicit judgments of the quality of information and credibility in other messages. In the judgments, the forum participants employed both positive criteria such as validity of information and negative criteria such as dishonesty in argumentation. In the evaluation of the quality of the message's information content, the most frequently used criteria pertained to the usefulness, correctness, and specificity of information. In the judgment of information credibility, the main criteria included the reputation, expertise, and honesty of the author of the message. Since Internet discussion forums tend to emphasize the role of disputational discourse questioning rather than accepting the views presented by others, mainly negative criteria were used in the judgments. The generality of our claims is limited because we chose forums that focused on sensitive and value-laden topics; future work could explore credibility and quality judgment in other forums and forumlike venues such as question and answer sites as well as exploring how quality and credibility judgments interact with other aspects of forum use.

0.008714426 = product of:
  0.017428853 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.012720408 = product of:
      0.025440816 = sum of:
        0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025440816 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose In contrast to the interest of describing and managing the social processes of knowing, information science and information and knowledge management research have put less emphasis on discussing how particular information becomes usable and how it is used in different contexts and situations. The purpose of this paper is to address this major gap, and introduce and discuss the applicability of the notion of situational appropriation of information for shedding light on this particular process in the context of daily information work practices of professionals. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the analysis of 25 qualitative interviews of archives, library and museum professionals conducted in two Nordic countries. Findings The study presents examples of how individuals appropriate different tangible and intangible assets as information on the basis of the situation in hand. Research limitations/implications The study proposes a new conceptual tool for articulating and conducting research on the process how information becomes useful in the situation in hand. Practical implications The situational appropriation of information perspective redefines the role of information management to incorporate a comprehensive awareness of the situations when information is useful and is being used. A better understanding how information becomes useful in diverse situations helps to discern the active role of contextual and situational effects and to exploit and take them into account as a part of the management of information and knowledge processes. Originality/value In contrast to orthodoxies of information science and information and knowledge management research, the notion of situational appropriation of information represents an alternative approach to the conceptualisation of information utilisation. It helps to frame particular types of instances of information use that are not necessarily addressed within the objectivistic, information seeker or learning oriented paradigms of information and knowledge management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.007904778 = product of:
  0.031619113 = sum of:
    0.031619113 = product of:
      0.063238226 = sum of:
        0.063238226 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063238226 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2439969 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Originality/value - The general consensus is that uncertainty is a mental state of users reflecting a gap in knowledge which triggers an IS&R process, and that the gap is reduced as relevant information is found, and thus that the uncertainty disappears as the search process concludes. However, in the present study it is argued that some form of uncertainty is always associated with some part of the IS&R process and that it also fluctuates throughout the IS&R process. Users may therefore feel uncertain at any stage of the IS&R process and this may be related to: the initial information need and expression of that need, the search process itself, including identification of relevant systems, services and resources; and the assessment of, and reaction to, the results produced by the search process. Uncertainty may be unresolved, or even increase, as the user progresses, often iteratively, through the IS&R process and may remain even after its completion, resulting in what may be called a persistent uncertainty. In other words, this research hypothesises that, in addition to the uncertainty that triggers the information search process (Wilson et al., 2000), users suffer from varying degrees of uncertainty at every stage of the information search and retrieval process, and that in turn, triggers different information-seeking behaviours.

0.0055651786 = product of:
  0.022260714 = sum of:
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

0.003975128 = product of:
  0.015900511 = sum of:
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

0.003975128 = product of:
  0.015900511 = sum of:
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 3.2019 17:32:22

0.0033293737 = product of:
  0.013317495 = sum of:
    0.013317495 = product of:
      0.05326998 = sum of:
        0.05326998 = weight(_text_:based in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05326998 = score(doc=5205,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.37662423 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We provide a model for the reception of knowledge from externalized information sources. The model is based on a cognitive understanding of information processing and draws up ideas of an exchange of information in communication processes. Karl Popper's three-world theory with its orientation on falsifiable scientific knowledge is extended by John Searle's concept of collective intentionality. This allows a consistent description of externalization and reception of knowledge including scientific knowledge as well as everyday knowledge.

0.002548521 = product of:
  0.010194084 = sum of:
    0.010194084 = product of:
      0.040776335 = sum of:
        0.040776335 = weight(_text_:based in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040776335 = score(doc=3397,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 3397, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3397)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

What we consider to be the influence of philosophy on scientific thinking largely depends on how science perceives itself. The understanding and conscious human-oriented design of the relationship between the computer and the creatively active person - i.e. the design of a formal model and the non-formal, natural and social environment - is always more readily recognized as the fundamental philosophical, theoretical and methodological problem of informatics (computer science and information systems). Informatics/computer science results from the necessity to overcome the tension between technology-based automation, which is based on a purely syntactic interpretation and transformation of information, and creative and active people who carry out semantic information processing based on their knowledge. It is this tension that requires the development and use of user-oriented software and the formal operations to be integrated into complex human work processes. Conceptual strategies that foster the development and integration of modern information technologies into social organization are currently the topic of vivid philosophical and methodological discussions, reflecting the influence of different philosophical schools. The utilization of information technologies has significantly changed both employee working conditions and the relationship between organizations and their environment. The development of humanity-oriented computer science is a necessary condition for integrating computational systems into social contexts and for largely adapting these systems to the users' needs.