Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.036400042 = product of:
  0.0910001 = sum of:
    0.04679445 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04679445 = score(doc=1514,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1514, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1514)
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=1514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 1514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1514)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Starts from the premise that meaning is not an intrinsic property of information items. Approaches to 'meaning' in diverse humanities disciplines, including philosophy, psychology, and the history of arts and music, are drawn on to enhance the understanding of meaning in the context of multimedia information retrieval on the Internet. The approaches described include philosophy of language and meaning, psychology of language including repertory grids and semantic differential, iconography and levels of meaning, and representation of music. A consistent theme in all these disciplines is the recognition that meaning is context dependent and may be analyzed at a variety of different levels, with nomenclature and number of levels varying across disciplines. Identifies the strengths and weaknesses of searching and retrieval on the Internet with particular emphasis on subject content and meaning. It shows the limitations of searching using the most basic level of meaning, while attempting to cater for a wide diversity of information resources and users. Recommends enhanced retrieval interfaces linked to the needs of specific user groups and the characteristics of specific media on the Internet

0.020727908 = product of:
  0.051819768 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
    0.019063652 = product of:
      0.038127303 = sum of:
        0.038127303 = weight(_text_:web in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038127303 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

With the proliferation of new information channels such as the Web, e-mail and wireless, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the impact of these technologies within information-seeking and retrieval contexts. This issue of Aslib Proceedings presents research that begins to address the notion of "information disparity". It aims to weave a common thread between the challenges of reconciling disparate information needs in an environment complicated by fragmented or disparate data sources. This article lists several emerging trends that should begin to challenge traditional notions of our research field.

0.0076254606 = product of:
  0.038127303 = sum of:
    0.038127303 = product of:
      0.076254606 = sum of:
        0.076254606 = weight(_text_:web in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076254606 = score(doc=618,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines the challenge for librarians presented with members of the public wanting to make use of the Internet, who may anticipate that finding information on the WWW is a relative straightforward matter. Looks at the kind of guidance needed in using both the Windows operating system and Web browsers. Points out that users will have to learn how to cope with the frustrations inherent to the current realities of the Internet, and specific problems such as the need for absolute precision when entering Web addresses. Reference interviews may be required to determine whether the Web is the best source for the information sought in a particular instance, to help formulate appropriate search strategies, and evaluate and present the information that users retrieve

0.0073075923 = product of:
  0.03653796 = sum of:
    0.03653796 = product of:
      0.07307592 = sum of:
        0.07307592 = weight(_text_:web in 202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07307592 = score(doc=202,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 202, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the Web, making judgments of information quality and authority is a difficult task for most users because overall, there is no quality control mechanism. This study examines the problem of the judgment of information quality and cognitive authority by observing people's searching behavior in the Web. Its purpose is to understand the various factors that influence people's judgment of quality and authority in the Web, and the effects of those judgments on selection behaviors. Fifteen scholars from diverse disciplines participated, and data were collected combining verbal protocols during the searches, search logs, and postsearch interviews. It was found that the subjects made two distinct kinds of judgment: predictive judgment, and evaluative judgment. The factors influencing each judgment of quality and authority were identified in terms of characteristics of information objects, characteristics of sources, knowledge, situation, ranking in search output, and general assumption. Implications for Web design that will effectively support people's judgments of quality and authority are also discussed

0.0050170454 = product of:
  0.025085226 = sum of:
    0.025085226 = product of:
      0.05017045 = sum of:
        0.05017045 = weight(_text_:22 in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05017045 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2013, 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=2013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Gemeinsam mit den Repräsentanten der großen deutschen und internationalen Wissenschaftsorganisationen hat Prof. Peter Gruss, der Präsident der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, am 22. Oktober die folgende »Berliner Erklärung über offenen Zugang zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen« (Berlin Declaration an Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities) unterzeichnet. Vorausgegangen war eine dreitägige Konferenz in Berlin. Dabei diskutierten international führende Experten über neue Zugangsmöglichkeiten zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen und kulturellem Erbe durch das Internet.

0.0043899147 = product of:
  0.021949572 = sum of:
    0.021949572 = product of:
      0.043899145 = sum of:
        0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043899145 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2021, 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=2021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Gemeinsam mit den Repräsentanten der großen deutschen und internationalen Wissenschaftsorganisationen hat Prof. Peter Gruss, der Präsident der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, am Mittwoch, den 22. Oktober, die "Berliner Erklärung über offenen Zugang zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen" (Berlin Declaration an Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities) unterzeichnet. Vorausgegangen war eine dreitägige Konferenz im Berlin-Dahlemer Harnack-Haus der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Dabei diskutierten international führende Experten über neue Zugangsmöglichkeiten zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen und kulturellem Erbe durch das Internet.

0.003547587 = product of:
  0.017737934 = sum of:
    0.017737934 = product of:
      0.03547587 = sum of:
        0.03547587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03547587 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

0.0032680542 = product of:
  0.01634027 = sum of:
    0.01634027 = product of:
      0.03268054 = sum of:
        0.03268054 = weight(_text_:web in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03268054 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.00266069 = product of:
  0.01330345 = sum of:
    0.01330345 = product of:
      0.0266069 = sum of:
        0.0266069 = weight(_text_:22 in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0266069 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.16414827 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Es gibt Daten, Informationen und Fakten. Wenn man mir eine Zahlenreihe vorsetzt, dann handelt es sich um Daten: unterscheidbare Einheiten, im Fachjargon: Items. Wenn man mir sagt, dass diese Items stündliche Temperaturangaben der Aare im Berner Marzilibad bedeuten, dann verfüge ich über Information - über interpretierte Daten. Wenn man mir sagt, dies seien die gemessenen Aaretemperaturen am 22. August 2016 im Marzili, dann ist das ein Faktum: empirisch geprüfte interpretierte Daten. Dieser Dreischritt - Unterscheiden, Interpretieren, Prüfen - bildet quasi das Bindemittel des Faktischen, «the matter of fact». Wir alle führen den Dreischritt ständig aus und gelangen so zu einem relativ verlässlichen Wissen und Urteilsvermögen betreffend die Dinge des Alltags. Aber wie schon die Kurzcharakterisierung durchblicken lässt, bilden Fakten nicht den Felsengrund der Realität. Sie sind kritikanfällig, sowohl von der Interpretation wie auch von der Prüfung her gesehen. Um bei unserem Beispiel zu bleiben: Es kann durchaus sein, dass man uns zwei unterschiedliche «faktische» Temperaturverläufe der Aare am 22. August 2016 vorsetzt.

0.0021949573 = product of:
  0.010974786 = sum of:
    0.010974786 = product of:
      0.021949572 = sum of:
        0.021949572 = weight(_text_:22 in 1985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021949572 = score(doc=1985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1985, 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=1985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.289 vom 11.12.2003, S.22