Search (121 results, page 1 of 7)

0.055682447 = product of:
  0.11136489 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
    0.10106549 = sum of:
      0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060081743 = score(doc=73,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 73, 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=73)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The central problem with understanding brain and mind is the neural code issue: understanding the matter of our brain as basis for the phenomena of our mind. The richness with which our mind represents our environment, the parsimony of genetic data, the tremendous efficiency with which the brain learns from scant sensory input and the creativity with which our mind constructs mental worlds all speak in favor of mind as an emergent phenomenon. This raises the further issue of how the neural code supports these processes of organization. The central point of this communication is that the neural code has the form of structured net fragments that are formed by network self-organization, activate and de-activate on the functional time scale, and spontaneously combine to form larger nets with the same basic structure.

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

Theme

Information

0.04437422 = product of:
  0.08874844 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=1344,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
    0.06955662 = sum of:
      0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035403505 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1733-1756

Theme

Information

0.041225523 = product of:
  0.054967366 = sum of:
    0.0072827823 = weight(_text_:information in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072827823 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.08228803 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
    0.033194643 = weight(_text_:standards in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033194643 = score(doc=3080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14772856 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
    0.014489941 = product of:
      0.028979883 = sum of:
        0.028979883 = weight(_text_:22 in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028979883 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

In der digitalen Welt wäscht ein Permaregen der Informationen ganz zentrale Standards wie Objektivität und Wahrheit aus. Die Folge: eine Demokratie der «Nichtwissenwollengesellschaft».

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.

Theme

Information

0.03840007 = product of:
  0.07680014 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4004,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4004, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4004)
    0.05620132 = product of:
      0.11240264 = sum of:
        0.11240264 = weight(_text_:organization in 4004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11240264 = score(doc=4004,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.62532854 = fieldWeight in 4004, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The communication of meaning as distinct from (Shannon-type) information is central to Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action. These theories share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide between interhuman communication and intentful action as two different systems of reference. Recombining these two theories into a theory about the structuration of expectations, interactions, organization, and self-organization of intentional communications can be simulated based on algorithms from the computation of anticipatory systems. The self-organizing and organizing layers remain rooted in the double contingency of the human encounter, which provides the variation. Organization and self-organization of communication are reflexive upon and therefore reconstructive of each other. Using mutual information in three dimensions, the imprint of meaning processing in the modeling system on the historical organization of uncertainty in the modeled system can be measured. This is shown empirically in the case of intellectual organization as "structurating" structure in the textual domain of scientific articles.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2138-2150

Theme

Information

0.036421 = product of:
  0.072842 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=4863,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=4863,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

Theme

Information

0.035547808 = product of:
  0.071095616 = sum of:
    0.03604793 = weight(_text_:information in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03604793 = score(doc=2254,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.40730494 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
    0.03504768 = product of:
      0.07009536 = sum of:
        0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009536 = score(doc=2254,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The relationship between information and complexity is analyzed using a detailed literature analysis. Complexity is a multifaceted concept, with no single agreed definition. There are numerous approaches to defining and measuring complexity and organization, all involving the idea of information. Conceptions of complexity, order, organization, and "interesting order" are inextricably intertwined with those of information. Shannon's formalism captures information's unpredictable creative contributions to organized complexity; a full understanding of information's relation to structure and order is still lacking. Conceptual investigations of this topic should enrich the theoretical basis of the information science discipline, and create fruitful links with other disciplines that study the concepts of information and complexity.

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2177-2186

Theme

Information

0.033478215 = product of:
  0.06695643 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=4639,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.04292447 = product of:
      0.08584894 = sum of:
        0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08584894 = score(doc=4639,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy or pyramid is a model or construct that has been used widely within information science and knowledge management. The nature of the pyramid is explained, and its historical origin is described. The conceptual components of the pyramid-i.e. data, information, knowledge, and wisdom-are given brief explication. Some modern developments, criticisms, and rebuttals of the DIKW Pyramid are described. Nowadays, the DIKW Pyramid would generally be considered to be unsatisfactory. The arguments and reasoning behind this conclusion are sketched. It is claimed that two more concepts, document and sign, are necessary to provide a fruitful theoretical frame for knowledge organization.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.1, S.33-46

Theme

Information

0.03273274 = product of:
  0.06546548 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=2810,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
    0.0482998 = product of:
      0.0965996 = sum of:
        0.0965996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0965996 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

Theme

Information

0.030480113 = product of:
  0.060960226 = sum of:
    0.033637732 = weight(_text_:information in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033637732 = score(doc=300,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, 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=300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to organize the extensive field and to compile the complete list of information limits. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough analysis of literature from the field beginning with the 1960s up to the present has been performed. Findings - A universal typology of information limits has been proposed. A list of barriers mentioned in the literature of the subject has been compiled. Research limitations/implications - The term "information limits" is not commonly used. Originality/value - The complete list of information limits with bibliographical hints (helpful for future research) is presented.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

Theme

Information

0.030398494 = product of:
  0.060796987 = sum of:
    0.02913113 = weight(_text_:information in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02913113 = score(doc=1064,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
    0.031665858 = product of:
      0.063331716 = sum of:
        0.063331716 = weight(_text_:organization in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063331716 = score(doc=1064,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.35233274 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The organization of information and the process of seeking information are fundamental activities, and thus fields of study, related to library and information science (LIS). Both endeavors are pragmatic in the sense that the ideas of information seeking behavior and the process of organizing information relates to some ideas of how users tend to behave when information is needed in order to fulfill a task of some kind. An important difference is, however, that information systems are primarily driven by principles of semantic structure, whereas users are driven by genuine information needs. Knowledge organization (KO), which is considered a subfield within LIS, has a particular focus on the organization of semantic units, and their relations (Hjørland 2008; Hodge 2000; Thellefsen 2010), however, it is our impression that the users information need, even though acknowledged, often is neglected or only mentioned en passant. The concept of information need is a core concept in LIS, and is, in particular, a core concept within the subfield of information retrieval (IR) that describes the state of uncertainty or anomalous knowledge state that precedes a user's information seeking behavior. Information need is, however, an intricate concept, and is only addressed in the LIS literature as some kind of elusive cognitive state. One may ask 'is an information need always individual or personal, and under what circumstances?' The present paper argues that the concept of information need may profit from a pragmatic and semeiotic perspective, which also may prove fruitful for KO. The paper thus discusses the concept of information need through three premises that is formulated based in Peirce's pragmatic semeiotic: 1) as the intricate relation between believe and doubt, 2) as a pragmatic process of clarification, and 3) as an activity of cognition taking place within a universe of discourse. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how this semeiotic analysis can be useful for KO.

Source

Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.4, S.213-224

Theme

Information

0.028899102 = product of:
  0.057798203 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
    0.047498792 = product of:
      0.094997585 = sum of:
        0.094997585 = weight(_text_:organization in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094997585 = score(doc=2375,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Moments after mankind started to make moveable physical records describing the world about them people started to store and arrange the records in logical order. Thereafter, records were copied and translated and simple catalogues of collections were compiled. Others, working from these records and from oral sources compiled lists, dictionaries and encyclopaedias. As the means of communication developed from the first revolutionary invention of writing to other revolutions in communication methods, notably printing with moveable type and the computer, techniques of knowledge organization became more sophisticated and powerful. In the first half of the twenty-first century we are faced with an unprecedented communications overload and the full range of knowledge organization techniques need to be deployed, further developed and applied.

Content

Selected Papers from "Knowledge Organization, Making a Difference: ISKO-UK Biennial Conference, 13th-14th July 2015, London. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_6.

Source

Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.6, S.456-469

Theme

Information

0.027849235 = product of:
  0.05569847 = sum of:
    0.03179129 = weight(_text_:information in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03179129 = score(doc=1296,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

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

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1279-1287

Theme

Information

0.02690585 = product of:
  0.0538117 = sum of:
    0.032569595 = weight(_text_:information in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032569595 = score(doc=5546,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.36800325 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In response to the perceived (by some) onset of an information society, historians have begun to study its roots and antecedents. The past is replete with the rise, fall, and transformation of systems of information, which are not to be confused with the narrower computer-mediated world of information systems. The history of systems of information-which for digestibility can be labeled information history-lacks neither scale nor scope. Systems of information have played a critical role in the transition to, and subsequent development of, capitalism; the growth of the state, especially the modern, nation-state; the rise of modernity, science, and the public sphere; imperialism; and geopolitics. In the context of these epochal shifts and episodes in human thinking and social organization, this essay presents a critical bibliographic survey of histories-outside the well-trodden paths of library and information-science history-that have foregrounded, or made reference to, a wide variety of systems of information.

Theme

Information

0.024011217 = product of:
  0.048022434 = sum of:
    0.030945875 = weight(_text_:information in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030945875 = score(doc=5077,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5077, 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=5077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

How does information lead to changes in human behavior? Why have current information theories been inadequate to shed light on this and related questions? Library and Information Science (LIS) has arrived at a crucial juncture in its relatively brief theoretical history. In addition to the cognitive and physical perspectives in our study of information, a new paradigm has been suggested; the affective paradigm. This new perspective offers keys to unlocking questions about the nature of the interaction of human and information. In recent years we have developed deeper knowledge and deeper specializations, drawing together and combining knowledge from multiple fields in order to advance our own knowledge. The relationship between information needs and information seeking has been well studied. The ways in which people use information is not as well understood because of the complex nature of human behavior. Drawing from other fields that study human behavior, however, muddies the traditional boundaries of LIS, creating some possible discomfort as we trespass into lesser known intellectual territory. Pushing our boundaries also forces questions of our self-identity as a discipline. What constitutes Library and Information Science, either in whole or in part, becomes more difficult to define and can lead to greater fragmentation. Alternatively, the incorporation of multiple perspectives may be the defining core of what constitutes LIS. The focus of this talk is to look at LIS from the outside in, from a multidisciplinary perspective, in order to shed light on questions of how information can lead to changes in human behavior. Drawing from other fields of study, the impact of information on human behavior will be explored in light of what other fields may have to offer.

Date

16. 3.2019 17:32:22

Theme

Information

0.02293346 = product of:
  0.04586692 = sum of:
    0.032205675 = weight(_text_:information in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032205675 = score(doc=2596,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.36389136 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
    0.013661247 = product of:
      0.027322493 = sum of:
        0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027322493 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose In contrast to the interest of describing and managing the social processes of knowing, information science and information and knowledge management research have put less emphasis on discussing how particular information becomes usable and how it is used in different contexts and situations. The purpose of this paper is to address this major gap, and introduce and discuss the applicability of the notion of situational appropriation of information for shedding light on this particular process in the context of daily information work practices of professionals. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the analysis of 25 qualitative interviews of archives, library and museum professionals conducted in two Nordic countries. Findings The study presents examples of how individuals appropriate different tangible and intangible assets as information on the basis of the situation in hand. Research limitations/implications The study proposes a new conceptual tool for articulating and conducting research on the process how information becomes useful in the situation in hand. Practical implications The situational appropriation of information perspective redefines the role of information management to incorporate a comprehensive awareness of the situations when information is useful and is being used. A better understanding how information becomes useful in diverse situations helps to discern the active role of contextual and situational effects and to exploit and take them into account as a part of the management of information and knowledge processes. Originality/value In contrast to orthodoxies of information science and information and knowledge management research, the notion of situational appropriation of information represents an alternative approach to the conceptualisation of information utilisation. It helps to frame particular types of instances of information use that are not necessarily addressed within the objectivistic, information seeker or learning oriented paradigms of information and knowledge management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.5, S.492-504

Theme

Information

0.021725137 = product of:
  0.043450274 = sum of:
    0.025748521 = weight(_text_:information in 1373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025748521 = score(doc=1373,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 1373, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1373)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 1373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=1373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 1373, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Starting this paper by discussing the nature of information, where it comes from and its uses, highlighting the importance of its characteristic to be the prime element in human development. It also refers to the ways in which we understand information, whether as a process or as a phenomenon and, therefore, emphasises its attributes as a means of accessing science, wisdom and the truth. Information as such does not have an identity of its own, it has to be upheld ... by an object, be it material or electronic. Here also it refers to its features, such as instability, inconsistency, perpetuity, etc. A new theory of knowledge is formulating, where information is taking as its paradigm, which is named "Informationisms" and it isan original idea of the author. The influence of information is studied as a prime element in human culture. Information is the first element in the development of the individual and, indeed, as well, in the development of humankind as a whole. It is giving us a general overview of the future influence of the different types of cultures, both humanistic and technological ones. The importance of information is so that it could become a factor in the human race annihilation from the Earth planet, but human beings have decided to transform their way of life and the direction in which their civilization should be conducted.

Source

Knowledge organization. 41(2014) no.1, S.92-96

Theme

Information

0.020988846 = product of:
  0.041977692 = sum of:
    0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02427594 = score(doc=3397,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3397, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3397)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=3397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 3397, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

What we consider to be the influence of philosophy on scientific thinking largely depends on how science perceives itself. The understanding and conscious human-oriented design of the relationship between the computer and the creatively active person - i.e. the design of a formal model and the non-formal, natural and social environment - is always more readily recognized as the fundamental philosophical, theoretical and methodological problem of informatics (computer science and information systems). Informatics/computer science results from the necessity to overcome the tension between technology-based automation, which is based on a purely syntactic interpretation and transformation of information, and creative and active people who carry out semantic information processing based on their knowledge. It is this tension that requires the development and use of user-oriented software and the formal operations to be integrated into complex human work processes. Conceptual strategies that foster the development and integration of modern information technologies into social organization are currently the topic of vivid philosophical and methodological discussions, reflecting the influence of different philosophical schools. The utilization of information technologies has significantly changed both employee working conditions and the relationship between organizations and their environment. The development of humanity-oriented computer science is a necessary condition for integrating computational systems into social contexts and for largely adapting these systems to the users' needs.

Source

Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss

Theme

Information

0.020920461 = product of:
  0.041840922 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 84) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=84,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 84, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=84)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 84) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=84,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 84, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=84)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Since 2004, the authors have designed a proposal of paradigms for the Documentation-Information field, which starts from a comprehensive meaning of the concept and is based on identifying the presence of a custodial, cultural, historicist- and-humanist, and technicist paradigm that has shaped the professional activity, education, and public policies of the archival, librarian, and museologist universe from the early 1800s to the mid-20th century. It also includes pointin out the emergence of a new post-custodial, informational, and scientific paradigm, generated by the profound changes taking place worldwide and that are summarized in strong, yet too generic, expressions such as "information era" or "globalization." This paper characterizes the two paradigms proposed, highlighting their dominant traits and showing their operational relevance at the level of education, research, and professional practice.

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.2, S.111-124

Theme

Information

0.019676244 = product of:
  0.039352488 = sum of:
    0.025691241 = weight(_text_:information in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025691241 = score(doc=3335,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29028487 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
    0.013661247 = product of:
      0.027322493 = sum of:
        0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027322493 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Es ist wieder an der Zeit den Begriff "Information" zu aktualisieren beziehungsweise einen Bericht zum Status Quo zu liefern. Information ist der zentrale Gegenstand der Informationswissenschaft und stellt einen der wichtigsten Forschungsgegenstände der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft dar. Erstaunlicherweise findet jedoch ein stetiger Diskurs, der mit der kritischen Auseinandersetzung und der damit verbundenen Aktualisierung von Konzepten in den Geisteswissensschaften vergleichbar ist, zumindest im deutschsprachigen Raum1 nicht konstant statt. Im Sinne einer theoretischen Grundlagenforschung und zur Erarbeitung einer gemeinsamen begrifflichen Matrix wäre dies aber sicherlich wünschenswert. Bereits im letzten Jahr erschienen in dem von Søren Brier (Siehe "The foundation of LIS in information science and semiotics"2 sowie "Semiotics in Information Science. An Interview with Søren Brier on the application of semiotic theories and the epistemological problem of a transdisciplinary Information Science"3) herausgegebenen Journal "Cybernetics and Human Knowing" acht lesenswerte Stellungnahmen von namhaften Philosophen beziehungsweise Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaftlern zum Begriff der Information. Unglücklicherweise ist das Journal "Cybernetics & Human Knowing" in Deutschland schwer zugänglich, da es sich nicht um ein Open-Access-Journal handelt und lediglich von acht deutschen Bibliotheken abonniert wird.4 Aufgrund der schlechten Verfügbarkeit scheint es sinnvoll hier eine ausführliche Besprechung dieser acht Kurzartikel anzubieten.
Das Journal, das sich laut Zusatz zum Hauptsachtitel thematisch mit "second order cybernetics, autopoiesis and cyber-semiotics" beschäftigt, existiert seit 1992/93 als Druckausgabe. Seit 1998 (Jahrgang 5, Heft 1) wird es parallel kostenpflichtig elektronisch im Paket über den Verlag Imprint Academic in Exeter angeboten. Das Konzept Information wird dort aufgrund der Ausrichtung, die man als theoretischen Beitrag zu den Digital Humanities (avant la lettre) ansehen könnte, regelmäßig behandelt. Insbesondere die phänomenologisch und mathematisch fundierte Semiotik von Charles Sanders Peirce taucht in diesem Zusammenhang immer wieder auf. Dabei spielt stets die Verbindung zur Praxis, vor allem im Bereich Library- and Information Science (LIS), eine große Rolle, die man auch bei Brier selbst, der in seinem Hauptwerk "Cybersemiotics" die Peirceschen Zeichenkategorien unter anderem auf die bibliothekarische Tätigkeit des Indexierens anwendet,5 beobachten kann. Die Ausgabe 1/ 2015 der Zeitschrift fragt nun "What underlines Information?" und beinhaltet unter anderem Artikel zum Entwurf einer Philosophie der Information des Chinesen Wu Kun sowie zu Peirce und Spencer Brown. Die acht Kurzartikel zum Informationsbegriff in der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft wurden von den Thellefsen-Brüdern (Torkild und Martin) sowie Bent Sørensen, die auch selbst gemeinsam einen der Kommentare verfasst haben.

Theme

Information

0.018134188 = product of:
  0.036268376 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=4463,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

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

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192

Theme

Information