Search (608 results, page 2 of 31)

0.021869322 = product of:
  0.032803982 = sum of:
    0.011379444 = weight(_text_:a in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011379444 = score(doc=1296,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

Type

a

0.021329116 = product of:
  0.031993672 = sum of:
    0.0075084865 = weight(_text_:a in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075084865 = score(doc=2485,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Although the 'information poor' are already present, the arrival of a much greater gap between the 'information poor' and 'information rich' is forecast in the book: Sovereign individual, by J.D. Davidson and W. Rees-Mogg. Concludes that, if the events forecast in the book come about, there will not be an information society but an unacceptable society

Date

3. 1.1999 14:40:22

Type

a

0.021208337 = product of:
  0.031812504 = sum of:
    0.010387965 = weight(_text_:a in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010387965 = score(doc=6964,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 6964, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6964)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=6964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6964, 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=6964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Within dynamic organizations, information systems often fail to adapt to changing requirements and structures. The book presents a different view of IS provision, based on end-user information systems construction, as a means of avoiding many of the recognized problems. Adopting a philosophy of constructivism, emphasizing psychological and social factors in information construction, the authors examine different types of systems across natural and social sciences

Content

Enthält u.a. die Kapitel: A constructivist approach to systems, science and constructivism, organizations as systems

Date

25.12.2001 13:22:30

0.021092616 = product of:
  0.031638924 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=3382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
    0.027656946 = product of:
      0.055313893 = sum of:
        0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055313893 = score(doc=3382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The first aim is to provide well-articulated concepts by thinking through elementary phenomena of today's world, focusing on privacy and the digital, to clarify who we are in the cyberworld - hence a phenomenology of digital whoness. The second aim is to engage critically, hermeneutically with older and current literature on privacy, including in today's emerging cyberworld. Phenomenological results include concepts of i) self-identity through interplay with the world, ii) personal privacy in contradistinction to the privacy of private property, iii) the cyberworld as an artificial, digital dimension in order to discuss iv) what freedom in the cyberworld can mean, whilst not neglecting v) intercultural aspects and vi) the EU context.

Content

Vgl.: http://www.capurro.de/floridi.html. Vgl. auch: http://www.acatech.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Baumstruktur_nach_Website/Acatech/root/de/Publikationen/Projektberichte/acatech_STUDIE_Internet_Privacy_WEB.pdf.

0.020783756 = product of:
  0.031175632 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 3394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=3394,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3394, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3394)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 3394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=3394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 3394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

To oversimplify, science has two fundamental ways of changing our understanding. One may be called extrovert, or about the world, and the other introvert, or about ourselves. Three scientific revolutions in the past had great impact both extrovertly and introvertly. In changing our understanding of the external world, they also modified our conception of who we are, that is, our self-understanding. The story is well known, so I shall recount it rather quickly. We used to think that we were at the centre of the universe, nicely placed there by a creator God. It was a most comfortable and reassuring position to hold. In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus published his treatise on the movements of planets around the sun. It was entitled On the Revolutions of Celestial Bodies (De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium). Copernicus probably did not mean to start a 'revolution' in our self-understanding as well. Nonetheless, his heliocentric cosmology forever displaced the earth from the centre of the universe and made us reconsider, quite literally, our own place and role in it. It caused such a profound change in our views of the universe that the word 'revolution' begun to be associated with radical scientific transformation. We have been dealing with the consequences of the Copernican revolution since its occurrence. Indeed, it is often remarked that one of the significant achievements of our space explorations has been a matter of external and comprehensive reflection on our human condition.

Type

a

0.020477211 = product of:
  0.030715816 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=2889,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Navigation is a limited metaphor for hypermedia and website use that potentially constraints our understanding of human-computer interaction. Traces the emergence of the navigation metaphor and the emprical analysis of navigation measures in usability evaluation before suggesting an alternative concept to consider: shape. The shape concept affords a richer analytic tool for considering humans' use of digital documents and invokes social level analysis of meaning that are shared among discourse communities who both produce and consume the information resources

Date

6. 2.1999 20:10:22

Type

a

0.020311622 = product of:
  0.030467432 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=1069,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Type

a

0.019862993 = product of:
  0.029794488 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3558, 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=3558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The history of encyclopedias and wholly new forms of encyclopedias are briefly reviewed. The possibilities and problems that hypertext presents as a basis for new forms of encyclopedias are explored. The capabilities of current systems, both experimental and commercially available, are outlined, focusing on new possibilities for authoring and design and for reading the retrieval. Examples of applications already making use of hypertext are given.

Date

7. 1.1996 22:47:52

0.019862993 = product of:
  0.029794488 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

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

Type

a

0.019862993 = product of:
  0.029794488 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 3696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=3696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3696)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 3696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=3696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:55:13

Type

a

0.01978939 = product of:
  0.029684084 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=706,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

At the heart of any discussion of the information sciences, at least when this discussion is held in the English language, lies the problem of the variant, and shifting, set of concepts and meanings of the terms 'library' and 'information'. The term 'information', in particular, has a variety of meanings in different contexts and communities of discourse, providing an excellent example of Wittgenstein's language game. This implies that any terminology built around this central concept is in danger of being constructed on 'shifting sands'. This article outlines, for the English language only, some of these diverse meanings of information, and their consequences for the terminology of the information sciences. It focuses on the variant relationships between information and related concepts, particularly data and knowledge. It also includes an account of the view information taken in the hard and soft methodologies of system science, as well as the new discipline of 'information physics'. From this, some remarks may be made on the changing meanings of the complex terms such as 'information technology' and 'information literacy', as well as those complex terms involving 'management', information management, knowledge management, document management etc. A similar, though shorter, treatment will de given to terminology around the 'library' concept, particularly in view of the change toward viewing a library as an organised virtual information space, rather than physical environment.

Type

a

0.01926614 = product of:
  0.028899208 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=3675,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3675, 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=3675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article is about the mental coding processes involved in the flow of 'information' when the user is interacting with an 'enabling' information retrieval system. An 'enabling' IR system is designed to stimulate the user's grasping towards a higher understanding of the information need / problem / task that brought the user to the IR system. C. Shannon's (1949/1959) model of the flow of information and K.R. Popper's (1975) 3 worlds concept are used to diagram the flow of information between the user and system when the user receives a stimulating massage, with particluar emphasis on the decoding and encoding operations involved as the user processes the message. The key difference between the model of information flow proposed here and the linear transmission, receiver-oriented model now in use is that we assume that users of a truly interactive, 'enabling' IR system are primarily message senders, not passive receivers of the message, because they must create a new message back to the system, absed on a reconceptualization of their information need, while they are 'online' interacting with the system

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

Type

a

0.019146256 = product of:
  0.028719384 = sum of:
    0.010281418 = weight(_text_:a in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010281418 = score(doc=534,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
    0.018437965 = product of:
      0.03687593 = sum of:
        0.03687593 = weight(_text_:de in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687593 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.18992399 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article presents an updated account of integrated information theory of consciousness (IIT) and some of its implications. IIT stems from thought experiments that lead to phenomenological axioms (existence, compositionality, information, integration, exclusion) and corresponding ontological postulates. The information axiom asserts that every experience is specific - it is what it is by differing in its particular way from a large repertoire of alternatives. The integration axiom asserts that each experience is unified - it cannot be reduced to independent components. The exclusion axiom asserts that every experience is definite - it is limited to particular things and not others and flows at a particular speed and resolution. IIT formalizes these intuitions with postulates. The information postulate states that only "differences that make a difference" from the intrinsic perspective of a system matter: a mechanism generates cause-effect information if its present state has selective past causes and selective future effects within a system. The integration postulate states that only information that is irreducible matters: mechanisms generate integrated information only to the extent that the information they generate cannot be partitioned into that generated within independent components. The exclusion postulate states that only maxima of integrated information matter: a mechanism specifies only one maximally irreducible set of past causes and future effects - a concept. A complex is a set of elements specifying a maximally irreducible constellation of concepts, where the maximum is evaluated over elements and at the optimal spatio-temporal scale. Its concepts specify a maximally integrated conceptual information structure or quale, which is identical with an experience. Finally, changes in information integration upon exposure to the environment reflect a system's ability to match the causal structure of the world. After introducing an updated definition of information integration and related quantities, the article presents some theoretical considerations about the relationship between information and causation and about the relational structure of concepts within a quale. It also explores the relationship between the temporal grain size of information integration and the dynamic of metastable states in the corticothalamic complex. Finally, it summarizes how IIT accounts for empirical findings about the neural substrate of consciousness, and how various aspects of phenomenology may in principle be addressed in terms of the geometry of information integration.

Source

Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 150(2012), p.290-326

Type

a

0.018745132 = product of:
  0.028117698 = sum of:
    0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009753809 = score(doc=2090,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2090, 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=2090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In order to test how associated verbal and spatial stimuli are processed in memory, undergraduates studied a reference map as either an intact unit or as a series of individual features, and read a text containing facts related to map features. In Addition, the map was presented either before or after reading the text. Seeing the intact map prior to the text led to better recall of both map information and facts from the text. These results support a dual coding modell, where stimuli such as maps possess a retrieval advantage because they allow simultaneous representation in working memory. This advantage occurs because information from the map can be used to cue retrieval of associated verbal facts, without exceeding the processing constraints of the memorial system

Date

22. 7.2000 19:18:18

Type

a

0.018662978 = product of:
  0.027994465 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=2790,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2790, 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=2790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Survivors of intimate partner violence face more than information gaps; many face powerful barriers in the form of information myths. Triangulating data from in-depth interviews and community bulletin board postings, this study incorporates insights from survivors, police, and shelter staff to begin mapping the information landscape through which survivors move. An unanticipated feature of that landscape is a set of 28 compelling information myths that prevent some survivors from making effective use of the social, legal, economic, and support resources available to them. This analysis of the sources, contexts, and consequences of these information myths is the first step in devising strategies to counter their ill effects.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:16:44

Type

a

0.018437965 = product of:
  0.055313893 = sum of:
    0.055313893 = product of:
      0.110627785 = sum of:
        0.110627785 = weight(_text_:de in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110627785 = score(doc=5400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.56977195 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mousaion 16(1998) no.1, S.131-132 (F. de Beer)

0.017551895 = product of:
  0.026327841 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=2994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2994)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2994, 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=2994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

When modelling pieces of unstructured information, such as full text forms, it is often necessary to recognize them based on a semantic principle, through which properties of information can be derived. Since there are several semantic principles that are related to each other, the resulting properties are also mutually relevant. This relevance is called 'relativity of concepts', whose modelling is indispensible to dealing exclusively with such properties of information that are invariant under the change of the underlying semantic principles. This paper uses the self-structured semantic relationship model to account for the relativity of concepts. More specifically, a set of local views rather than a single global view are introduced to the model, which greatly enhances the flexibility of the model's expressive power. Furthermore, semantic equivalence between the view-based information structures is also formalized in the proposed model. This truns out to be useful when integrating pieces of information that are structure based on different principles

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.1, S.22-30

Type

a

0.01719778 = product of:
  0.02579667 = sum of:
    0.010493428 = weight(_text_:a in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010493428 = score(doc=4463,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Type

a

0.016840585 = product of:
  0.025260875 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=408,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=408,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 408, 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=408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The dominant approaches in information literacy scholarship and research conflict with constructivist approaches to learning preferred by educators. Proposes an alternative, 'relational', model of information literacy which reveals a picture of information literacy that is constructed in terms of varying relations between people and information. These relations are captured in 7 categories, graphially conveyed through awareness structures, which together represent information literacy as it is experienced. Information literacy education may be interpreted as helping people to experience information use differently. This model demonstrates that: the meanings associated with information literacy by information professionals may not be shared by users; the experienced meaning of information literacy is fluid and contextually bound; and, understanding of information literacy and related concepts will deepen if the experience of information users is given priority in research. Proposes an agenda for information literacy research based upon the relational approach

Source

New review of information and library research. 3(1997), S.1-22

Type

a

0.016840585 = product of:
  0.025260875 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=909,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 909, 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=909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The emergence of Knowledge Management (KM) over the last decade has triggered the question how or even whether this new management discipline can be distinguished from the established field of Information Management (IM). In this paper we critically examine this demarcation issue from two angles. First we will investigate to what extent the difference between IM and KM can be anchored an a conceptual distinction between their respective objects: information and knowledge. After having shown that this widely adopted strategy promises little success, we will shift our attention to an examination of the fundamental objectives or guiding principles behind both disciplines. Seen from this angle we argue that KM in order to foster organizational learning, innovation and strategy flexibility, should adopt a postmodern epistemological perspective that is geared to the management of incommensurability and difference within and between organizations.

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

Type

a