Search (31 results, page 2 of 2)

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 5528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=5528,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5528, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 5818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=5818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006545604 = product of:
  0.013091208 = sum of:
    0.013091208 = product of:
      0.026182417 = sum of:
        0.026182417 = weight(_text_:22 in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026182417 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.006351088 = product of:
  0.012702176 = sum of:
    0.012702176 = product of:
      0.025404353 = sum of:
        0.025404353 = weight(_text_:c in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025404353 = score(doc=3380,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.16169086 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006351088 = product of:
  0.012702176 = sum of:
    0.012702176 = product of:
      0.025404353 = sum of:
        0.025404353 = weight(_text_:c in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025404353 = score(doc=480,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.16169086 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 71(2020) no.1, S.118-120 (Heidi Julien). - Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Cole, C.: A rebuttal of the book review of the book titled "The Consciousness' Drive: Information Need and the Search for Meaning": mapping cognitive and document spaces. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.2, S.242.

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 506, 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=506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.12.2012 17:22:26

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = 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(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = 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(1/2)

0.0059878635 = product of:
  0.011975727 = sum of:
    0.011975727 = product of:
      0.023951454 = sum of:
        0.023951454 = weight(_text_:c in 2154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023951454 = score(doc=2154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2154, 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=2154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0059878635 = product of:
  0.011975727 = sum of:
    0.011975727 = product of:
      0.023951454 = sum of:
        0.023951454 = weight(_text_:c in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023951454 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = 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.

0.0037424145 = product of:
  0.007484829 = sum of:
    0.007484829 = product of:
      0.014969658 = sum of:
        0.014969658 = weight(_text_:c in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014969658 = score(doc=5523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = 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.