Search (93 results, page 1 of 5)

0.062286716 = product of:
  0.09343007 = sum of:
    0.08208451 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08208451 = score(doc=4270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.26916912 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
    0.011345566 = product of:
      0.022691133 = sum of:
        0.022691133 = weight(_text_:of in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022691133 = score(doc=4270,freq=60.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33120972 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
              7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
                60.0 = termFreq=60.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

"Theory weary, theory leery, why can't I be theory cheery?" (Erickson, 2002, p. 269). The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) is rapidly expanding. Alongside the extensive technological developments that are taking place, a profusion of new theories, methods, and concerns has been imported into the field from a range of disciplines and contexts. An extensive critique of recent theoretical developments is presented here together with an overview of HCI practice. A consequence of bringing new theories into the field has been much insightful explication of HCI phenomena and also a broadening of the field's discourse. However, these theoretically based approaches have had limited impact an the practice of interaction design. This chapter discusses why this is so and suggests that different kinds of mechanisms are needed that will enable both designers and researchers to better articulate and theoretically ground the challenges facing them today. Human-computer interaction is bursting at the seams. Its mission, goals, and methods, well established in the '80s, have all greatly expanded to the point that "HCI is now effectively a boundless domain" (Barnard, May, Duke, & Duce, 2000, p. 221). Everything is in a state of flux: The theory driving research is changing, a flurry of new concepts is emerging, the domains and type of users being studied are diversifying, many of the ways of doing design are new, and much of what is being designed is significantly different. Although potentially much is to be gained from such rapid growth, the downside is an increasing lack of direction, structure, and coherence in the field. What was originally a bounded problem space with a clear focus and a small set of methods for designing computer systems that were easier and more efficient to use by a single user is now turning into a diffuse problem space with less clarity in terms of its objects of study, design foci, and investigative methods. Instead, aspirations of overcoming the Digital Divide, by providing universal accessibility, have become major concerns (e.g., Shneiderman, 2002a). The move toward greater openness in the field means that many more topics, areas, and approaches are now considered acceptable in the worlds of research and practice.
A problem with allowing a field to expand eclectically is that it can easily lose coherence. No one really knows what its purpose is anymore or what criteria to use in assessing its contribution and value to both knowledge and practice. For example, among the many new approaches, ideas, methods, and goals now being proposed, how do we know which are acceptable, reliable, useful, and generalizable? Moreover, how do researchers and designers know which of the many tools and techniques to use when doing design and research? To be able to address these concerns, a young field in a state of flux (as is HCI) needs to take stock and begin to reflect an the changes that are happening. The purpose of this chapter is to assess and reflect an the role of theory in contemporary HCI and the extent to which it is used in design practice. Over the last ten years, a range of new theories has been imported into the field. A key question is whether such attempts have been productive in terms of "knowledge transfer." Here knowledge transfer means the translation of research findings (e.g., theory, empirical results, descriptive accounts, cognitive models) from one discipline (e.g., cognitive psychology, sociology) into another (e.g., human-computer interaction, computer supported cooperative work).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.87-144

0.037970424 = product of:
  0.11391127 = sum of:
    0.11391127 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.09497269 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09497269 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.3-42

0.037970424 = product of:
  0.11391127 = sum of:
    0.11391127 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
      0.09497269 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09497269 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, 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=3962)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.xxx-xxx

0.037970424 = product of:
  0.11391127 = sum of:
    0.11391127 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.09497269 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09497269 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

0.037970424 = product of:
  0.11391127 = sum of:
    0.11391127 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.09497269 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09497269 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.023560425 = product of:
  0.070681274 = sum of:
    0.070681274 = sum of:
      0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023194931 = score(doc=266,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02129588 = product of:
  0.06388764 = sum of:
    0.06388764 = sum of:
      0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016401293 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.020615373 = product of:
  0.06184612 = sum of:
    0.06184612 = sum of:
      0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020295564 = score(doc=6084,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 6084, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6084)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=6084,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6084, 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=6084)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The challenge of cataloging Web sites and electronic resources was the most important issue facing the cataloging world in the last year. This article reviews attempts to analyze and revise the cataloging code in view of the new electronic environment. The difficulties of applying traditional library cataloging standards to Web resources has led some to favor metadata as the best means of providing access to these materials. The appropriate education and training for library cataloging personnel remains crucial during this transitional period. Articles on user understanding of Library of Congress subject headings and on cataloging practice are also reviewed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.020292649 = product of:
  0.060877945 = sum of:
    0.060877945 = sum of:
      0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0133916 = score(doc=152,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article provides a review of cataloging and classification publications that appeared in the last two years. The review considers the papers in two categories. Cataloging Theories and Practices covers descriptive cataloging, authority control, classification, subject cataloging, cataloging nonbook materials, electronic resources and metadata, and international cooperation. The second section covers other issues related to cataloging, including management, and education and training. Throughout the review, the author identifies trends and important developments in the area of cataloging and classification.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02002593 = product of:
  0.060077786 = sum of:
    0.060077786 = sum of:
      0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018527232 = score(doc=5006,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this selected bibliography is to introduce issues and problems in relation to thesaurus construction and to present a set of readings that may be used in practical thesaurus design. The concept of thesaurus is discussed, the purpose of the thesaurus and how the concept has evolved over the years according to new IR technologies. Different approaches to thesaurus construction are introduced, and readings dealing with specific problems and developments in the collection, formation and organisation of thesaurus concepts and terms are presented. Primarily manual construction methods are discussed, but the bibliography also refers to research about techniques for automatic thesaurus construction.

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.018134935 = product of:
  0.054404803 = sum of:
    0.054404803 = sum of:
      0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018790042 = score(doc=2548,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, 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=2548)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This review of 2004 and 2005 serials literature covers the themes of cost, management, and access. Interwoven through the serials literature of these two years are the importance of collaboration, communication, and linkages between scholars, publishers, subscription agents and other intermediaries, and librarians. The emphasis in the literature is on electronic serials and their impact on publishing, libraries, and vendors. In response to the crisis of escalating journal prices and libraries' dissatisfaction with the Big Deal licensing agreements, Open Access journals and publishing models were promoted. Libraries subscribed to or licensed increasing numbers of electronic serials. As a result, libraries sought ways to better manage licensing and subscription data (not handled by traditional integrated library systems) by implementing electronic resources management systems. In order to provide users with better, faster, and more current information on and access to electronic serials, libraries implemented tools and services to provide A-Z title lists, title by title coverage data, MARC records, and OpenURL link resolvers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.016435925 = product of:
  0.04930777 = sum of:
    0.04930777 = sum of:
      0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019628802 = score(doc=1088,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 1088, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1088)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The topic of electronic journals (e-journals) dominated the serials literature from 2000 to 2003. This review is limited to the events and issues within the broad topics of cost, management, and archiving. Coverage of cost includes such initiatives as PEAK, JACC, BioMed Central, SPARC, open access, the "Big Deal," and "going e-only." Librarians combated the continued price increase trend for journals, fueled in part by publisher mergers, with the economies found with bundled packages and consortial subscriptions. Serials management topics include usage statistics; core title lists; staffing needs; the "A-Z list" and other services from such companies as Serials Solutions; "deep linking"; link resolvers such as SFX; development of standards or guidelines, such as COUNTER and ERMI; tracking of license terms; vendor mergers; and the demise of integrated library systems and a subscription agent's bankruptcy. Librarians archived print volumes in storage facilities due to space shortages. Librarians and publishers struggled with electronic archiving concepts, discussing questions of who, where, and how. Projects such as LOCKSS tested potential solutions, but missing online content due to the Tasini court case and retractions posed more archiving difficulties. The serials literature captured much of the upheaval resulting from the rapid pace of changes, many linked to the advent of e-journals.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0047346456 = product of:
  0.014203937 = sum of:
    0.014203937 = product of:
      0.028407874 = sum of:
        0.028407874 = weight(_text_:of in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028407874 = score(doc=4293,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 4293, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A community of practice has recently been defined as "a flexible group of professionals, informally bound by common interests, who interact through interdependent tasks guided by a common purpose thereby embodying a store of common knowledge" (Jubert, 1999, p. 166). The association of communities of practice with the production of collective knowledge has long been recognized, and they have been objects of study for a number of decades in the context of professional communication, particularly communication in science (Abbott, 1988; Bazerman & Paradis, 1991). Recently, however, they have been invoked in the domain of organization studies as sites where people learn and share insights. If, as Stinchcombe suggests, an organization is "a set of stable social relations, dehberately created, with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes" (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142), where does this "flexible" and "embodied" source of knowledge fit? Can communities of practice be harnessed, engineered, and managed like other organizational groups, or does their strength lie in the fact that they operate outside the stable and persistent social relations that characterize the organization?

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 36(2002), S.171-228

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 3504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=3504,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3504, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.xxx-xxx

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 4675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=4675,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 4675, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 4694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=4694,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 4694, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.00442116 = product of:
  0.01326348 = sum of:
    0.01326348 = product of:
      0.02652696 = sum of:
        0.02652696 = weight(_text_:of in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02652696 = score(doc=4244,freq=82.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38719913 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
              9.055386 = tf(freq=82.0), with freq of:
                82.0 = termFreq=82.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.
Shannon provides a model whereby an information source selects a desired message, out of a set of possible messages, that is then formed into a signal. The signal is sent over the communication channel to a receiver, which then transforms the signal back to a message that is relayed to its destination (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963, p. 7). Problems connected with this model have remained with us. Some of the concepts are ambiguous; the identification of information with a process has spancelled the debate; the problems of measuring the amount of information, the relation of information to meaning, and questions about the truth value of information have remained. Balancing attention between the process and the act of receiving information, and deterrnining the character of the receiver, has also been the focus of work and debate. Information science has mined work from other disciplines involving information theory and has also produced its own theory. The desire for theory remains (Hjorland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999), but what theory will deliver is unclear. The distinction between data and information, or communication and information, is not of concern here. The convention that data, at some point of use, become information, and that information is transferred in a process of communication suffices for this discussion. Substitution of any of these terms is not a problem. More problematic is the relationship between information and knowledge. It seems accepted that at some point the data by perception, or selection, become information, which feeds and alters knowledge structures in a human recipient. What that process of alteration is, and its implications, remain problematic. This review considers the following questions: 1. What can be gleaned from the history of reviews of information in information science? 2. What current maps, guides, and surveys are available to elaborate our understanding of the issues? 3. Is there a parallel development of work outside information science an information theory of use to us? 4. Is there a dominant view of information within information science? 5. What can we say about issues like measurement, meaning, and misinformation? 6. Is there other current work of relevance that can assist attempts, in information science, to develop a theory of information?

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 36(2002), S.393-426

0.004267752 = product of:
  0.012803256 = sum of:
    0.012803256 = product of:
      0.025606511 = sum of:
        0.025606511 = weight(_text_:of in 4289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025606511 = score(doc=4289,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 4289, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the notion of trust as it relates to information science and technology, specifically user interfaces, autonomous agents, and information systems. We first present an in-depth discussion of the concept of trust in and of itself, moving an to applications and considerations of trust in relation to information technologies. We consider trust from a "soft" perspective-thus, although security concepts such as cryptography, virus protection, authentication, and so forth reinforce (or damage) the feelings of trust we may have in a system, they are not themselves constitutive of "trust." We discuss information technology from a human-centric viewpoint, where trust is a less well-structured but much more powerful phenomenon. With the proliferation of electronic commerce (e-commerce) and the World Wide Web (WWW, or Web), much has been made of the ability of individuals to explore the vast quantities of information available to them, to purchase goods (as diverse as vacations and cars) online, and to publish information an their personal Web sites.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.465-498

0.004267752 = product of:
  0.012803256 = sum of:
    0.012803256 = product of:
      0.025606511 = sum of:
        0.025606511 = weight(_text_:of in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025606511 = score(doc=5079,freq=104.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              10.198039 = tf(freq=104.0), with freq of:
                104.0 = termFreq=104.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411