Search (262 results, page 1 of 14)

0.071747296 = product of:
  0.09566306 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.07823421 = weight(_text_:term in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07823421 = score(doc=3077,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.35716853 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
    0.012720408 = product of:
      0.025440816 = sum of:
        0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025440816 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, 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=3077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.

Date

2. 1.2005 18:22:25

0.06322336 = product of:
  0.12644672 = sum of:
    0.04659926 = product of:
      0.18639705 = sum of:
        0.18639705 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18639705 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39798802 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.07984746 = weight(_text_:term in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07984746 = score(doc=76,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.3645336 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A summary of brain theory is given so far as it is contained within the framework of Localization Theory. Difficulties of this "conventional theory" are traced back to a specific deficiency: there is no way to express relations between active cells (as for instance their representing parts of the same object). A new theory is proposed to cure this deficiency. It introduces a new kind of dynamical control, termed synaptic modulation, according to which synapses switch between a conducting and a non- conducting state. The dynamics of this variable is controlled on a fast time scale by correlations in the temporal fine structure of cellular signals. Furthermore, conventional synaptic plasticity is replaced by a refined version. Synaptic modulation and plasticity form the basis for short-term and long-term memory, respectively. Signal correlations, shaped by the variable network, express structure and relationships within objects. In particular, the figure-ground problem may be solved in this way. Synaptic modulation introduces exibility into cerebral networks which is necessary to solve the invariance problem. Since momentarily useless connections are deactivated, interference between di erent memory traces can be reduced, and memory capacity increased, in comparison with conventional associative memory

Source

http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_

0.060513463 = product of:
  0.08068462 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

0.06028825 = product of:
  0.08038434 = sum of:
    0.004161717 = product of:
      0.016646868 = sum of:
        0.016646868 = weight(_text_:based in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016646868 = score(doc=3686,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.11769507 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=3686,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.019761946 = product of:
      0.039523892 = sum of:
        0.039523892 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039523892 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.15249807 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.9, S.1008-1009 (D.E. Agosto): "This second edition of Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age remains true to the first edition (published in 1998). The main changes involved the updating of educational standards discussed in the text, as well as the updating of the term history. Overall, this book serves as a detailed definition of the concept of information literacy and focuses heavily an presenting and discussing related state and national educational standards and policies. It is divided into 10 chapters, many of which contain examples of U.S. and international information literacy programs in a variety of educational settings. Chapter one offers a detailed definition of information literacy, as well as tracing the deviation of the term. The term was first introduced in 1974 by Paul Zurkowski in a proposal to the national Commission an Libraries and Information Science. Fifteen years later a special ALA committee derived the now generally accepted definition: "To be information literate requires a new set of skills. These include how to locate and use information needed for problem-solving and decision-making efficiently and effectively" (American Library Association, 1989, p. 11). Definitions for a number of related concepts are also offered, including definitions for visual literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, digital literacy, and network literacy. Although the authors do define these different subtypes of information literacy, they sidestep the argument over the definition of the more general term literacy, consequently avoiding the controversy over national and world illiteracy rates. Regardless of the actual rate of U.S. literacy (which varies radically with each different definition of "literacy"), basic literacy, i.e., basic reading and writing skills, still presents a formidable educational goal in the U.S. In fact, More than 5 million high-schoolers do not read well enough to understand their textbooks or other material written for their grade level. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 26% of these students cannot read material many of us world deem essential for daily living, such as road signs, newspapers, and bus schedules. (Hock & Deshler, 2003, p. 27)
Chapter two delves more deeply into the historical evolution of the concept of information literacy, and chapter three summarizes selected information literacy research. Researchers generally agree that information literacy is a process, rather than a set of skills to be learned (despite the unfortunate use of the word "skills" in the ALA definition). Researchers also generally agree that information literacy should be taught across the curriculum, as opposed to limiting it to the library or any other single educational context or discipline. Chapter four discusses economic ties to information literacy, suggesting that countries with information literate populations will better succeed economically in the current and future information-based world economy. A recent report issued by the Basic Education Coalition, an umbrella group of 19 private and nongovernmental development and relief organizations, supports this claim based an meta-analysis of large bodies of data collected by the World Bank, the United Nations, and other international organizations. Teach a Child, Transform a Nation (Basic Education Coalition, 2004) concluded that no modern nation has achieved sustained economic growth without providing near universal basic education for its citizens. It also concluded that countries that improve their literacy rates by 20 to 30% sec subsequent GDP increases of 8 to 16%. In light of the Coalition's finding that one fourth of adults in the world's developing countries are unable to read or write, the goal of worldwide information literacy seems sadly unattainable for the present, a present in which even universal basic literacy is still a pipedream. Chapter live discusses information literacy across the curriculum as an interpretation of national standards. The many examples of school and university information literacy programs, standards, and policies detailed throughout the volume world be very useful to educators and administrators engaging in program planning and review. For example, the authors explain that economics standards included in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act are comprised of 20 benchmark content standards. They quote a two-pronged grade 12 benchmark that first entails students being able to discuss how a high school senior's working 20 hours a week while attending school might result in a reduced overall lifetime income, and second requires students to be able to describe how increasing the federal minimum wage might result in reduced income for some workers. The authors tie this benchmark to information literacy as follows: "Economic decision making requires complex thinking skills because the variables involved are interdependent.

0.057888947 = product of:
  0.115777895 = sum of:
    0.09033708 = weight(_text_:term in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09033708 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.41242266 = fieldWeight in 3901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3901)
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3901, 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=3901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Adopted and formatted in 1994 and reprinted with the permission of the American Association of School Librarians. Information literacy is the term being applied to the skills of information problem solving. Identifies the key elements of information literacy and presents a rationale for integrating information literacy into all aspects of the K-12 and post secondary curriculum

Date

11. 4.1996 14:22:40

0.057888947 = product of:
  0.115777895 = sum of:
    0.09033708 = weight(_text_:term in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09033708 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.41242266 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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

0.055263177 = product of:
  0.11052635 = sum of:
    0.079044946 = weight(_text_:term in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079044946 = score(doc=2746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.36086982 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
    0.031481404 = product of:
      0.06296281 = sum of:
        0.06296281 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06296281 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Fundamental forms of information, as well as the term information itself, are defined and developed for the purposes of information science/studies. Concepts of natural and represented information (taking an unconventional sense of representation), encoded and embodied information, as well as experienced, enacted, expressed, embedded, recorded, and trace information are elaborated. The utility of these terms for the discipline is illustrated with examples from the study of information-seeking behavior and of information genres. Distinctions between the information and curatorial sciences with respect to their social (and informational) objects of study are briefly outlined.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.044842064 = product of:
  0.05978942 = sum of:
    0.0029427784 = product of:
      0.011771114 = sum of:
        0.011771114 = weight(_text_:based in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011771114 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.083222985 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.048896383 = weight(_text_:term in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048896383 = score(doc=2748,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.22323033 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.007950256 = product of:
      0.015900511 = sum of:
        0.015900511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015900511 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.039522473 = product of:
  0.15808989 = sum of:
    0.15808989 = weight(_text_:term in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15808989 = score(doc=2753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.72173965 = fieldWeight in 2753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2753)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Studies in long-term memory. Ed.: R.A. Kennedy u. A. Wilkes

0.03706847 = product of:
  0.07413694 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.06707428 = product of:
      0.13414855 = sum of:
        0.13414855 = weight(_text_:assessment in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13414855 = score(doc=201,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.51759565 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article reviews selected literature related to the credibility of information, including (1) the general markers of credibility, and how different source, message and receiver characteristics affect people's perceptions of information; (2) the impact of information medium on the assessment of credibility; and (3) the assessment of credibility in the context of information presented on the Internet. The objective of the literature review is to synthesize the current state of knowledge in this area, develop new ways to think about how people interact with information presented via the Internet, and suggest next steps for research and practical applications. The review examines empirical evidence, key reviews, and descriptive material related to credibility in general, and in terms of on-line media. A general discussion of credibility and persuasion and a description of recent work on the credibility and persuasiveness of computer-based applications is presented. Finally, the article synthesizes what we have learned from various fields, and proposes a model as a framework for much-needed future research in this area

0.034227468 = product of:
  0.13690987 = sum of:
    0.13690987 = weight(_text_:term in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13690987 = score(doc=1118,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.62504494 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents a brief history of the term "information" and its different meanings, which are both important and difficult because the different meanings of the term imply whole theories of knowledge. The article further considers the relation between "information" and the concepts "matter and energy", "data", "sign and meaning", "knowledge" and "communication". It presents and analyses the influence of information in information studies and knowledge organization and contains a presentation and critical analysis of some compound terms such as "information need", "information overload" and "information retrieval", which illuminate the use of the term information in information studies. An appendix provides a chronological list of definitions of information.

0.031474918 = product of:
  0.12589967 = sum of:
    0.12589967 = weight(_text_:frequency in 3254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12589967 = score(doc=3254,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.45543438 = fieldWeight in 3254, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3254)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An outline history describes how man has extended the process of objectivization from everyday practicalities to modern science. Modern techniques of quantification awaited the adoption of the Hindu-Arab numerals and the creation of a calculus for their use. It is argued that the use of these numerals has provided analytical instruments which, though ideally adapted to the exploration and exploitation of the physical world, fail to capture important aspects of the individuality of response within groups which humans display in their social behaviour. New quantitative techniques more sensitive to these aspects are therefore needed in the social sciences. A numerical example is used to illustrate how frequency-rank statistics make fuller use of empirical information in the social sciences than conventional statistics which, by using classes, discards information related to individuality

0.030006554 = product of:
  0.060013108 = sum of:
    0.00411989 = product of:
      0.01647956 = sum of:
        0.01647956 = weight(_text_:based in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01647956 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.11651218 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.055893216 = weight(_text_:term in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055893216 = score(doc=2632,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.2551735 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

How is knowledge acquired and represented in memory? By what process do individuals come to change their ideas, conceptions, or knowledge? Although the first question has been central to cognitive psychologists' research agendas for many years, relatively less is known about the change process. We examine 3 research literatures to broaden our understanding of the process of knowledge change. In particular, we draw on models of conceptual change from cognitive psychology, social psychology, and science education. Each model adds a new perspective on the change process. Based on the literature from these models of change, we developed a new model that represents our reconceptualization of the change process. We describe the model and use it to point out new areas of research to be addressed. Psychology has, at its foundation, an abiding interest in understanding the construction of knowledge. How do individuals come to perceive, know, remember, and learn? How do individuals acquire new knowledge? How is knowledge represented and organized in memory? How do individuals come to change their knowledge? These questions have served as conceptual frameworks for psychological, as well as philosophical, thought for centuries (Hunt, 1993).
Until recently, questions about the nature of knowledge and its representation have received far more theoretical and research attention than have questions about how individuals acquire knowledge. Piaget distinguished himself as a notable exception to his contemporaries in that he spent his life studying knowledge acquisition. He described two processes involved in acquisition. He used the term assimilation for the addition of information to existing knowledge structures and accommodation for the modification or change of existing knowledge structures (Piaget, 1985). More recently, these views of knowledge acquisition are well captured by the perspective of cognitive constructivism (Cobb, 1994). Constructivism places prime importance on the individual's active role in the knowledge acquisition process. Researchers after Piaget fine-tuned the constructs of assimilation and accommodation. Schema theorists used the term accretion for the assimilation of new factual information that fits into existing knowledge structures (Rumelhart & Norman, 1981). Cognitive psychologists described various mechanisms of knowledge acquisition, such as addition, deletion, discrimination, and generalization (Chi, 1992).

0.028230337 = product of:
  0.11292135 = sum of:
    0.11292135 = weight(_text_:term in 3963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11292135 = score(doc=3963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.5155283 = fieldWeight in 3963, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3963)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Focuses on the concept of information and considers what is actually meant when the term is used. The arguments are illustrated by the work undertaken by the International Development Research Centre, Canada (IDRC) in its research initiative in information and its impact on development

0.027946608 = product of:
  0.11178643 = sum of:
    0.11178643 = weight(_text_:term in 4004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11178643 = score(doc=4004,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.510347 = fieldWeight in 4004, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4004)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Attemps to define the term: information; and challenges the assumptions often made about familiar concepts used in evaluating information services. Comments on the fact that do not always report the definitions of the variables they measure, or the circumstances of the measurement, with enough precision to enable others to use them. Illustrates the points with particular reference to the ambiguity evident in the use of the term 'relevance' when applied to information and notes the difficulty in sharing data among information science researchers in the absence of agreed upon standards

0.027946608 = product of:
  0.11178643 = sum of:
    0.11178643 = weight(_text_:term in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11178643 = score(doc=182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.510347 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Thema der Untersuchung ist die meta-wissenschaftliche Betrachtung von Informationen in den Wissenschaften. ... Der grundlegende Term "Information" wird so allgemein definiert, daß alle bis heute bekannten Definitionsvarianten (die oftmasl disziplinspezifisch ausgerichtet sind) aus diesem Term ableitbar sind. "Information" wird dabei als das Gesamt von "Signal" (materieller Aspekt) und "Informen" (ideeller Aspekt) betrachtet.

0.027946608 = product of:
  0.11178643 = sum of:
    0.11178643 = weight(_text_:term in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11178643 = score(doc=232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.510347 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article addresses the question "what is information?" by comparing the meaning of the term "information" and epistemological assumptions of three theories in library and information science: the "Shannon-Weaver model," Brookes' interpretation of Popper's World 3, and the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom model. It shows that the term "information" in these theories refers to empirical entities or events and is conceptualized as having causal powers upon human minds. It is argued that the epistemological assumptions have led to the negligence of the cultural and social aspects of the constitution of information (i.e., how something is considered to be and not to be information) and the unquestioned nature of science in research methodologies.

0.0269785 = product of:
  0.107914 = sum of:
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 1774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=1774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 1774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1774)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the flood of information that is inundating us. This flood makes it increasingly difficult to make sense of the world and arrive at the correct interpretation of events. Design/methodology/approach - Classic narrative literature review applying the dosage metaphor to the growing problem of information overload. Findings - The seven elements of dosage - amount, frequency, sequencing, delivery systems, contraindications, interactions, and dysfunctions - are used to discuss four major coping mechanisms - escape, attention, delegation, and creative destruction - for dealing with the flood. Each of the coping mechanisms has different entailments for the dosage elements. Originality/value - This essay develops a guiding principle for thinking about how we should cope with this central problem of the information age: suggesting a minimalist approach that offers the hope of clarity in acting in an age that increasingly overwhelms us.

0.023923663 = product of:
  0.047847327 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=526,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.039523892 = product of:
      0.079047784 = sum of:
        0.079047784 = weight(_text_:assessment in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079047784 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The present study contributes to the development of integrated models for information behavior and practices at the domain-specific level. To this end, the model for everyday information practices proposed by Savolainen in 2008 is enhanced by integrating the element of information creating, based on Thomson's recent 2018 study. The integration resulted in the expanded model for everyday information practices. Using conceptual analysis, the above model was examined in light of conventional (positivist and post-positivist) and interpretive (social constructivist) criteria for theory assessment. The findings suggest that the integrated model meets best the interpretive criteria such as meaningfulness and understandability, mutuality of concepts and descriptive logic, empirical verifiability, and usefulness. In contrast, theoretical potential of the model is fairly limited when weighed against the conventional criteria, such as generalization and prediction. Overall, the findings suggest that, in its current form, the expanded model cannot be regarded as a "genuine theory" of everyday information practices. However, the model does incorporate many of the qualities characteristic of social scientific theories, and thus exhibits considerable theoretical potential. This is even more so if the interpretive, naturalistic basis of the data in which the expanded model is based is considered.

0.022704724 = product of:
  0.04540945 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.039523892 = product of:
      0.079047784 = sum of:
        0.079047784 = weight(_text_:assessment in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079047784 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Information, owing to its nature, has numerous capabilities. Through utilizing these capabilities, information systems can add to the value of information. The purpose of this paper is to explain where and how added value emerges from the work processes in library and information professions. Design/methodology/approach - The paper begins with a review of the related literature and then takes a conceptual approach to discuss different values of information and IR systems; elaborates on how each of the processes such as assessment of needs, selection, description/organization, storage/processing, search/retrieval, and dissemination generate capabilities that lead to added value. Findings - The paper identifies that added value is generated through processes such as reproduction, exchange, transfer, refinement, analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and regeneration of information. Many such processes turn information into knowledge. Research limitations/implications - This paper is based on the author's reflections on the matter of added value generated by library and information practice. Further empirical studies are needed to substantiate the extent to which such values are generated through information systems and services in the real world. Practical implications - Librarians and information specialists can find through their working practice how to design systems and services which can generate added value for information. Originality/value - In the present evolving conditions, library and information professionals are able to add to the value of information by sharing their knowledge with the expertise of computer scientists and finding a variety of ways and up-to-date methods of optimizing existing systems, as well as designing new systems. These are the two strategies along which the profession should guide its educational, research and practical endeavors.