Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsethik"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Martin, J.M.: Records, responsibility, and power : an overview of cataloging ethics (2021) 0.04 
    0.035397515 = product of:
  0.123891294 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=708,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=708,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Ethics are principles which provide a framework for making decisions that best reflect a set of values. Cataloging carries power, so ethical decision-making is crucial. Because cataloging requires decision-making in areas that differ from other library work, cataloging ethics are a distinct subset of library ethics. Cataloging ethics draw on the primary values of serving the needs of users and providing access to materials. Cataloging ethics are not new, but they have received increased attention since the 1970s. Major current issues in cataloging ethics include the creation of a code of ethics; ongoing debate on the appropriate role of neutrality in cataloging misleading materials and in subject heading lists and classification schemes; how and to what degree considerations of privacy and self-determination should shape authority work; and whether or not our current cataloging codes are sufficiently user-focused.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1871458 Teil eines Themenheftes: Cataloging and Classification: Back to Basics.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.2/3, S.281-304
  2. Chan, M.; Daniels, J.; Furger, S.; Rasmussen, D.; Shoemaker, E.; Snow, K.: ¬The development and future of the cataloguing code of ethics (2022) 0.01 
    0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.8, p.786-806
  3. Bagatini, J.A.; Chaves Guimarães, J.A.: Algorithmic discriminations and their ethical impacts on knowledge organization : a thematic domain-analysis (2023) 0.00 
    0.004806533 = product of:
  0.03364573 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Personal data play a fundamental role in contemporary socioeconomic dynamics, with one of its primary aspects being the potential to facilitate discriminatory situations. This situation impacts the knowledge organization field especially because it considers personal data as elements (facets) to categorize persons under an economic and sometimes discriminatory perspective. The research corpus was collected at Scopus and Web of Science until the end of 2021, under the terms "data discrimination", "algorithmic bias", "algorithmic discrimination" and "fair algorithms". The obtained results allowed to infer that the analyzed knowledge domain predominantly incorporates personal data, whether in its behavioral dimension or in the scope of the so-called sensitive data. These data are susceptible to the action of algorithms of different orders, such as relevance, filtering, predictive, social ranking, content recommendation and random classification. Such algorithms can have discriminatory biases in their programming related to gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, age, social class, socioeconomic profile, physical appearance, and political positioning.
  4. Tran, Q.-T.: Standardization and the neglect of museum objects : an infrastructure-based approach for inclusive integration of cultural artifacts (2023) 0.00 
    0.004806533 = product of:
  0.03364573 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The paper examines the integration of born-digital and digitized content into an outdated classification system within the Museum of European Cultures in Berlin. It underscores the predicament encountered by smaller to medium-sized cultural institutions as they navigate between adhering to established knowl­edge management systems and preserving an expanding array of contemporary cultural artifacts. The perspective of infrastructure studies is employed to scrutinize the representation of diverse viewpoints and voices within the museum's collections. The study delves into museum personnel's challenges in cataloging and classifying ethnographic objects utilizing a numerical-alphabetical categorization scheme from the 1930s. It presents an analysis of the limitations inherent in this method, along with its implications for the assimilation of emerging forms of born-digital and digitized objects. Through an exploration of the case of category 74, as observed at the Museum of European Cultures, the study illustrates the complexities of replacing pre-existing systems due to their intricate integration into the socio-technical components of the museum's information infrastructure. The paper reflects on how resource-constrained cultural institutions can take a proactive and ethical approach to knowl­edge management, re-evaluating their knowl­edge infrastructure to promote inclusion and ensure adaptability.
  5. Brito, M. de: Social affects engineering and ethics (2023) 0.00 
    0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    This text proposes a multidisciplinary reflection on the subject of ethics, based on philosophical approaches, using Spinoza's work, Ethics, as a foundation. The power of Spinoza's geometric reasoning and deterministic logic, compatible with formal grammars and programming languages, provides a favorable framework for this purpose. In an information society characterized by an abundance of data and a diversity of perspectives, complex thinking is an essential tool for developing an ethical construct that can deal with the uncertainty and contradictions in the field. Acknowledging the natural complexity of ethics in interpersonal relationships, the use of AI techniques appears unavoidable. Artificial intelligence in KOS offers the potential for processing complex questions through the formal modeling of concepts in ethical discourse. By formalizing problems, we hope to unleash the potential of ethical analysis; by addressing complexity analysis, we propose a mechanism for understanding problems and empowering solutions.

Authors