Search (51 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0016189317 = product of:
  0.011332521 = sum of:
    0.011332521 = weight(_text_:in in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011332521 = score(doc=560,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The focus of this thesis is information use. Although a key concept in information behaviour, information use has received little attention from information science researchers. Studies of other key concepts such as information need and information seeking are dominant in information behaviour research. Information use is an area of interest to information professionals who rely on research outcomes to shape their practice. There are few empirical studies of how people actually use information that might guide and refine the development of information systems, products and services.

Content

A thesis submitted to the University of Technology, Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. - Vgl. unter: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2100/309/2/02whole.pdf.

0.0016023268 = product of:
  0.011216287 = sum of:
    0.011216287 = weight(_text_:in in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011216287 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0015106882 = product of:
  0.010574817 = sum of:
    0.010574817 = weight(_text_:in in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010574817 = score(doc=3288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 3288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3288)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A cognitive architecture embodies the more general structures and mechnaisms out of which could be made a model of individual cognition in certain situation. The space of models and architectures has a number of dimensions, including: dependence on domain; level of specification; and extent of coverage of different phenomena

0.0015106882 = product of:
  0.010574817 = sum of:
    0.010574817 = weight(_text_:in in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010574817 = score(doc=3291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The term information design is being offered in this volume as a disignator of a new area of activity. Part of the logic inherent in the presentation is the assumption that as a species we face altered circumstances which demand this new practice

0.0014928799 = product of:
  0.010450159 = sum of:
    0.010450159 = weight(_text_:in in 1234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010450159 = score(doc=1234,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 1234, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1234)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

I have become "brutally honest" of late, at least according to one listener who heard my remarks during a recent whistle stop speaking tour of publishing conventions. This comment caught me a little off guard. Not that I haven't always been frank, but I do try never to be brutal. The truth, I guess, can be painful, even if the intention of the teller is simply objectivity. This paper is based on a "brutally honest" talk I have been giving to publishers, first, in February, to the Association of American Publishers' Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division, at which point I was calling the piece, "The Illusion of Free Information." It was this initial rendition that led to the invitation to publish something here. Since then I've been working on the talk. I gave a second version of it in March to the assembly of the American Society of Information Dissemination Centers, where I called it, "When Sectors Clash: Public Access vs. Private Interest." And, most recently, I gave yet a third version of it to the governing board of the American Institute of Physics. This time I called it: "The Future of Society Publishing." The notion of free information, our government's proper role in distributing free information, and the future of scholarly publishing in a world of free information . . . these are the issues that are floating around in my head. My goal here is to tell you where my thinking is only at this moment, for I reserve the right to continue thinking and developing new permutations on this mentally challenging theme.

0.0014443179 = product of:
  0.010110225 = sum of:
    0.010110225 = weight(_text_:in in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010110225 = score(doc=3380,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.16256167 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In April 2010, Bill Gates gave a talk at MIT in which he asked: 'are the brightest minds working on the most important problems?' Gates meant improving the lives of the poorest; improving education, health, and nutrition. We could easily add improving peaceful interactions, human rights, environmental conditions, living standards and so on. Philosophy of Information (PI) proponents think that Gates has a point - but this doesn't mean we should all give up philosophy. Philosophy can be part of this project, because philosophy understood as conceptual design forges and refines the new ideas, theories, and perspectives that we need to understand and address these important problems that press us so urgently. Of course, this naturally invites us to wonder which ideas, theories, and perspectives philosophers should be designing now. In our global information society, many crucial challenges are linked to information and communication technologies: the constant search for novel solutions and improvements demands, in turn, changing conceptual resources to understand and cope with them. Rapid technological development now pervades communication, education, work, entertainment, industrial production and business, healthcare, social relations and armed conflicts. There is a rich mine of philosophical work to do on the new concepts created right here, right now.
Here, we introduce PI now. We cover core ideas, explaining how they relate both to traditional philosophy, and to the conceptual issues arising all over the place - such as in computer science, AI, natural and social sciences, as well as in popular culture. This is the first version, for 2013. Next year we'll tell you about PI 2014. We hope you love PI as much as we do! If so, let us have your feedback, and come back in 2014. Maybe some of you will ultimately join us as researchers. Either way, enjoy it. Yours, Patrick, Bert, Simon, Nir, Federico, Carson, Phyllis, Andrew, Eric, Giuseppe, Federica, Christoph, Mariarosaria, Matteo, Orlin, and Hector.

Content

Vgl. auch unter: http://www.socphilinfo.org/teaching/book-pi-intro: "This book serves as the main reference for an undergraduate course on Philosophy of Information. The book is written to be accessible to the typical undergraduate student of Philosophy and does not require propaedeutic courses in Logic, Epistemology or Ethics. Each chapter includes a rich collection of references for the student interested in furthering her understanding of the topics reviewed in the book. The book covers all the main topics of the Philosophy of Information and it should be considered an overview and not a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of a philosophical area. As a consequence, 'The Philosophy of Information: a Simple Introduction' does not contain research material as it is not aimed at graduate students or researchers. The book is available for free in multiple formats and it is updated every twelve months by the team of the p Research Network: Patrick Allo, Bert Baumgaertner, Anthony Beavers, Simon D'Alfonso, Penny Driscoll, Luciano Floridi, Nir Fresco, Carson Grubaugh, Phyllis Illari, Eric Kerr, Giuseppe Primiero, Federica Russo, Christoph Schulz, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Matteo Turilli, Orlin Vakarelov. (*) The version for 2013 is now available as a pdf. The content of this version will soon be integrated in the redesign of the teaching-section. The beta-version from last year will provisionally remain accessible through the Table of Content on this page."

0.0013352723 = product of:
  0.009346906 = sum of:
    0.009346906 = weight(_text_:in in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009346906 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die Künstliche Intelligenz kann uns gefährlich werden - dann nämlich, wenn sie autonom wird. Mit Rücksicht dürfen Unterlegene in diesem Fall nicht rechnen, der Mensch wäre ein Auslaufmodell. Ein Gastbeitrag.

0.0013082944 = product of:
  0.00915806 = sum of:
    0.00915806 = weight(_text_:in in 4449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00915806 = score(doc=4449,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 4449, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4449)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In a new study, computer scientists found that artificial intelligence systems fail a vision test a child could accomplish with ease. "It's a clever and important study that reminds us that 'deep learning' isn't really that deep," said Gary Marcus , a neuroscientist at New York University who was not affiliated with the work. The result takes place in the field of computer vision, where artificial intelligence systems attempt to detect and categorize objects. They might try to find all the pedestrians in a street scene, or just distinguish a bird from a bicycle (which is a notoriously difficult task). The stakes are high: As computers take over critical tasks like automated surveillance and autonomous driving, we'll want their visual processing to be at least as good as the human eyes they're replacing. It won't be easy. The new work accentuates the sophistication of human vision - and the challenge of building systems that mimic it. In the study, the researchers presented a computer vision system with a living room scene. The system processed it well. It correctly identified a chair, a person, books on a shelf. Then the researchers introduced an anomalous object into the scene - an image of elephant. The elephant's mere presence caused the system to forget itself: Suddenly it started calling a chair a couch and the elephant a chair, while turning completely blind to other objects it had previously seen. Researchers are still trying to understand exactly why computer vision systems get tripped up so easily, but they have a good guess. It has to do with an ability humans have that AI lacks: the ability to understand when a scene is confusing and thus go back for a second glance.

Source

https://www.quantamagazine.org/machine-learning-confronts-the-elephant-in-the-room-20180920/

0.0011943039 = product of:
  0.008360127 = sum of:
    0.008360127 = weight(_text_:in in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008360127 = score(doc=4320,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Celebrating this week's confirmation of the site of the Pharos of Alexandria, one of the ancient wonders of the world, the participants in the High Level Colloquium on Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning held at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina on 6-9 November 2005 proclaim that information literacy and lifelong learning are the beacons of the Information Society, illuminating the courses to development, prosperity and freedom.

Content

"Information Literacy lies at the core of lifelong learning. It empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion of all nations. Lifelong learning enables individuals, communities and nations to attain their goals and to take advantage of emerging opportunities in the evolving global environment for shared benefit. It assists them and their institutions to meet technological, economic and social challenges, to redress disadvantage and to advance the well being of all.
Information literacy - comprises the competencies to recognize information needs and to locate, evaluate, apply and create information within cultural and social contexts; - is crucial to the competitive advantage of individuals, enterprises (especially small and medium enterprises), regions and nations; - provides the key to effective access, use and creation of content to support economic development, education, health and human services, and all other aspects of contemporary societies, and thereby provides the vital foundation for fulfilling the goals of the Millennium Declaration and the World Summit on the Information Society; and - extends beyond current technologies to encompass learning, critical thinking and interpretative skills across professional boundaries and empowers individuals and communities. Within the context of the developing Information Society, we urge governments and intergovernmental organizations to pursue policies and programs to promote information literacy and lifelong learning. In particular, we ask them to support. ..."

0.0010682179 = product of:
  0.0074775247 = sum of:
    0.0074775247 = weight(_text_:in in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074775247 = score(doc=5205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We provide a model for the reception of knowledge from externalized information sources. The model is based on a cognitive understanding of information processing and draws up ideas of an exchange of information in communication processes. Karl Popper's three-world theory with its orientation on falsifiable scientific knowledge is extended by John Searle's concept of collective intentionality. This allows a consistent description of externalization and reception of knowledge including scientific knowledge as well as everyday knowledge.

8.011634E-4 = product of:
  0.0056081433 = sum of:
    0.0056081433 = weight(_text_:in in 4245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0056081433 = score(doc=4245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.062193166 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045721713 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 4245, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4245)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In New Scientist issue 18 Sept 1999, "Life force" pp27-30 Paul Davies writes "an apparently random sequence such as 110101001010010111... cannot be condensed into a simple set of instructions, so it has a high information content." (p29). This notion of 'information content' leads to paradoxes. Consider random number generator software. Let it generate 100 and 1000 random numbers. According to the above definition the second sequence of numbers has an information content ten times higher than the first, because its description would be ten times longer. However they are both generated by the same simple set of instructions, so should have exactly the same 'information content'. There is the paradox. It seems clear that this measure of 'information content' misses the point. It measures compressibility of a sequence, not 'information content'. One needs meaning of a sequence to capture information content.