Search (1019 results, page 51 of 51)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Li, C.; Sun, A.: Extracting fine-grained location with temporal awareness in tweets : a two-stage approach (2017) 0.00 
    0.0049201283 = product of:
  0.009840257 = sum of:
    0.009840257 = product of:
      0.019680513 = sum of:
        0.019680513 = weight(_text_:c in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019680513 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  2. Digital research confidential : the secrets of studying behavior online (2015) 0.00 
    0.0049201283 = product of:
  0.009840257 = sum of:
    0.009840257 = product of:
      0.019680513 = sum of:
        0.019680513 = weight(_text_:c in 3702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019680513 = score(doc=3702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 3702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Editor
    Hargittai, E. u. C. Sandvig
  3. Gnoli, C.: Mentefacts as a missing level in theory of information science (2018) 0.00 
    0.0049201283 = product of:
  0.009840257 = sum of:
    0.009840257 = product of:
      0.019680513 = sum of:
        0.019680513 = weight(_text_:c in 4624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019680513 = score(doc=4624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 4624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Greinoecker, A.; Seaward, L; Terras, M.; Ares Oliveira, S.; Bosch, V.; Bryan, M.; Colutto, S.; Déjean, H.; Diem, M.; Fiel, S.; Gatos, B.; Grüning, T.; Hackl, G.; Haukkovaara, V.; Heyer, G.; Hirvonen, L.; Hodel, T.; Jokinen, M.; Kahle, P.; Kallio, M.; Kaplan, F.; Kleber, F.; Labahn, R.; Lang, E.M.; Laube, S.; Leifert, G.; Louloudis, G.; McNicholl, R.; Meunier, J.-L.; Michael, J.; Mühlbauer, E.; Philipp, N.; Pratikakis, I.; Pérez, J.P.; Putz, H.; Retsinas, G.; Romero, V.; Sablatnig, R.; Sánchez, J.A.; Schofield, P.; Sfikas, G.; Sieber, C.; Stamatopoulos, N.; Tobias Strauß, T.; Terbul, T.; Ulreich, B; Villegas, M.; Vidal, E.; Walcher, J.; Weidemann, M.; Wurster, H.; Zagoris, K.; Toselli, A.H.; Muehlberger, G,: Transforming scholarship in the archives through handwritten text recognition (2019) 0.00 
    0.0049201283 = product of:
  0.009840257 = sum of:
    0.009840257 = product of:
      0.019680513 = sum of:
        0.019680513 = weight(_text_:c in 5458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019680513 = score(doc=5458,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 5458, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Bates, M.J.: Concepts for the study of information embodiment (2018) 0.00 
    0.0049201283 = product of:
  0.009840257 = sum of:
    0.009840257 = product of:
      0.019680513 = sum of:
        0.019680513 = weight(_text_:c in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019680513 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0002. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.
  6. Foundations of information ethics (2019) 0.00 
    0.0049201283 = product of:
  0.009840257 = sum of:
    0.009840257 = product of:
      0.019680513 = sum of:
        0.019680513 = weight(_text_:c in 5878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019680513 = score(doc=5878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 5878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Inhalt: Principles and concepts in information ethics / John T.F. Burgess -- Human rights and information ethics / Paul T. Jaeger, Ursula Gorham, and Natalie Greene Taylor -- History of ethics in the information professions / John T.F. Burgess -- Information access / Emily J.M. Knox -- Privacy / Michael Zimmer -- Ethics of discourse / John M. Budd -- Intellectual property ethics / Kathrine Andrews Henderson -- Data ethics / Peter Darch -- Cybersecurity ethics / Jane Blanken-Webb, Imani Palmer, Roy H. Campbell, Nicholas C. Burbules, and Masooda Bashir -- Cognitive justice and intercultural communication ethics / Rachel Fischer and Erin Klazar -- Global digital citizenship / Margaret Zimmerman -- Emerging issues / Amelia Gibson.
  7. Thenmalar, S.; Geetha, T.V.: Enhanced ontology-based indexing and searching (2014) 0.00 
    0.004436966 = product of:
  0.008873932 = sum of:
    0.008873932 = product of:
      0.017747864 = sum of:
        0.017747864 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017747864 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  8. Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015) 0.00 
    0.004436966 = product of:
  0.008873932 = sum of:
    0.008873932 = product of:
      0.017747864 = sum of:
        0.017747864 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017747864 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  9. Gossen, T.: Search engines for children : search user interfaces and information-seeking behaviour (2016) 0.00 
    0.004436966 = product of:
  0.008873932 = sum of:
    0.008873932 = product of:
      0.017747864 = sum of:
        0.017747864 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017747864 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  10. Deventer, J.P. van; Kruger, C.J.; Johnson, R.D.: Delineating knowledge management through lexical analysis : a retrospective (2015) 0.00 
    0.004436966 = product of:
  0.008873932 = sum of:
    0.008873932 = product of:
      0.017747864 = sum of:
        0.017747864 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017747864 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  11. Kandel, E.R.: Reductionism in art and brain science : bridging the two cultures (2016) 0.00 
    0.004436966 = product of:
  0.008873932 = sum of:
    0.008873932 = product of:
      0.017747864 = sum of:
        0.017747864 = weight(_text_:22 in 5305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017747864 = score(doc=5305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5305, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5305)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    14. 6.2019 12:22:37
  12. Weller, K.: Knowledge representation in the Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.00 
    0.004305112 = product of:
  0.008610224 = sum of:
    0.008610224 = product of:
      0.017220449 = sum of:
        0.017220449 = weight(_text_:c in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017220449 = score(doc=4515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.4, S.205-206 (C. Carstens): "Welche Arten der Wissensrepräsentation existieren im Web, wie ausgeprägt sind semantische Strukturen in diesem Kontext, und wie können soziale Aktivitäten im Sinne des Web 2.0 zur Strukturierung von Wissen im Web beitragen? Diesen Fragen widmet sich Wellers Buch mit dem Titel Knowledge Representation in the Social Semantic Web. Der Begriff Social Semantic Web spielt einerseits auf die semantische Strukturierung von Daten im Sinne des Semantic Web an und deutet andererseits auf die zunehmend kollaborative Inhaltserstellung im Social Web hin. Weller greift die Entwicklungen in diesen beiden Bereichen auf und beleuchtet die Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen, die aus der Kombination der Aktivitäten im Semantic Web und im Social Web entstehen. Der Fokus des Buches liegt dabei primär auf den konzeptuellen Herausforderungen, die sich in diesem Kontext ergeben. So strebt die originäre Vision des Semantic Web die Annotation aller Webinhalte mit ausdrucksstarken, hochformalisierten Ontologien an. Im Social Web hingegen werden große Mengen an Daten von Nutzern erstellt, die häufig mithilfe von unkontrollierten Tags in Folksonomies annotiert werden. Weller sieht in derartigen kollaborativ erstellten Inhalten und Annotationen großes Potenzial für die semantische Indexierung, eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Retrieval im Web. Das Hauptinteresse des Buches besteht daher darin, eine Brücke zwischen den Wissensrepräsentations-Methoden im Social Web und im Semantic Web zu schlagen. Um dieser Fragestellung nachzugehen, gliedert sich das Buch in drei Teile. . . .
  13. Levy, S.: In the plex : how Google thinks, works, and shapes our lives (2011) 0.00 
    0.004305112 = product of:
  0.008610224 = sum of:
    0.008610224 = product of:
      0.017220449 = sum of:
        0.017220449 = weight(_text_:c in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017220449 = score(doc=9,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Deutsche Übersetzung als: Googlenomics : Wie Google denkt, arbeitet und unser Leben verändert. Heidelberg, Neckar ; mitp/bhv ; 2011. Rez. in: JASIST 62(2011) no.12, S.2540-2543 (C. Leslie)
  14. Onofri, A.: Concepts in context (2013) 0.00 
    0.004305112 = product of:
  0.008610224 = sum of:
    0.008610224 = product of:
      0.017220449 = sum of:
        0.017220449 = weight(_text_:c in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017220449 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.
  15. Sautoy, M. du: What we cannot know (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038031137 = product of:
  0.0076062274 = sum of:
    0.0076062274 = product of:
      0.015212455 = sum of:
        0.015212455 = weight(_text_:22 in 3034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015212455 = score(doc=3034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2016 16:08:54
  16. Burke, C.: Information and intrigue : from index cards to Dewey decimals to Alger Hiss (2014) 0.00 
    0.0036900965 = product of:
  0.007380193 = sum of:
    0.007380193 = product of:
      0.014760386 = sum of:
        0.014760386 = weight(_text_:c in 2228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014760386 = score(doc=2228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.114332706 = fieldWeight in 2228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  17. Koch, C.: Consciousness : confessions of a romantic reductionist (2012) 0.00 
    0.0034790565 = product of:
  0.006958113 = sum of:
    0.006958113 = product of:
      0.013916226 = sum of:
        0.013916226 = weight(_text_:c in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013916226 = score(doc=4561,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.10779391 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Erwiderung von C. Koch u. G. Tononi in: The New York Review of Books, 07.03.2013 [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/03/07/can-photodiode-be-conscious/?pagination=false&printpage=true] mit einer weiteren Erwiderung von J. Searle.
  18. Metoyer, C.A.; Doyle, A.M.: Introduction to a speicial issue on "Indigenous Knowledge Organization" (2015) 0.00 
    0.0031692616 = product of:
  0.0063385232 = sum of:
    0.0063385232 = product of:
      0.0126770465 = sum of:
        0.0126770465 = weight(_text_:22 in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0126770465 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26. 8.2015 19:22:31
  19. Hartel, J.: ¬The case against Information and the Body in Library and Information Science (2018) 0.00 
    0.0030750802 = product of:
  0.0061501605 = sum of:
    0.0061501605 = product of:
      0.012300321 = sum of:
        0.012300321 = weight(_text_:c in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012300321 = score(doc=5523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.09527725 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0018. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.

Authors

Types

  • a 939
  • m 58
  • el 44
  • s 25
  • x 6
  • b 4
  • i 1
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications