Search (113 results, page 5 of 6)

0.0030562007 = product of:
  0.009168602 = sum of:
    0.009168602 = product of:
      0.018337203 = sum of:
        0.018337203 = weight(_text_:of in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018337203 = score(doc=5876,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To start off I would like to briefly address the relationship between indexing and classification, which are very technical activities performed by information professionals, and the concept of social responsibility (the focus of this conference), which refer to the human side of the profession. Although indexing and classification involve many technicalities, the basic objective of these activities is to provide access to informationbearing objects, thereby contributing to the social process of information transfer. Information transfer takes place between authors (creators of information- bearing objects) and information users. The authors have something to communicate, and the users have information needs that must be satisfied by the information professional acting as intermediary. In the process of facilitating this information transfer the indexer and classifier therefore has a responsibility towards both authors and information users. Authors can expect the information professional to represent their creations as accurately and exhaustively as possible in retrieval systems, within the constraints of time and cost. Users can expect the information professional to index and classify in such a way as to ensure that information that can satisfy their information needs will be retrievable within the shortest time and with the least effort possible. One can also see the social responsibility of indexers and classifiers in a broader context. They do not only have a responsibility towards specific authors and users, but also towards communities as a whole, e.g. the scientific community, the business community, or society at large. In the case of the scientific community effective transfer of information about advances in research can be seen as essential for the progress of science. Providing effective and suitable information retrieval systems to make this transfer possible can therefore be seen as a responsibility of information professionals. In a business enterprise the effective organization of business records and other business information sources can make a significant contribution to the smooth operation of the enterprise, may be essential for legal purposes, and can enable management to use the information for decision-making at all levels. The information manager therefore has a responsibility towards the enterprise to properly organize and index all these resources.

0.0030562007 = product of:
  0.009168602 = sum of:
    0.009168602 = product of:
      0.018337203 = sum of:
        0.018337203 = weight(_text_:of in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018337203 = score(doc=1360,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In A Brief History of Information Ethics, Thomas Froehlich (2004) quickly surveyed under several broad categories some of the many issues that constitute information ethics: under the category of librarianship - censorship, privacy, access, balance in collections, copyright, fair use, and codes of ethics; under information science, which Froehlich sees as closely related to librarianship - confidentiality, bias, and quality of information; under computer ethics - intellectual property, privacy, fair representation, nonmaleficence, computer crime, software reliability, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce; under cyberethics (issues related to the Internet, or cyberspace) - expert systems, artificial intelligence (again), and robotics; under media ethics - news, impartiality, journalistic ethics, deceit, lies, sexuality, censorship (again), and violence in the press; and under intercultural information ethics - digital divide, and the ethical role of the Internet for social, political, cultural, and economic development. Many of the debates in information ethics, on these and other issues, have to do with specific kinds of relationships between subjects. The most important subject and a familiar figure in information ethics is the ethical subject engaged in moral deliberation, whether appearing as the bearer of moral rights and obligations to other subjects, or as an agent whose actions are judged, whether by others or by oneself, according to the standards of various moral codes and ethical principles. Many debates in information ethics revolve around conflicts between those acting according to principles of unfettered access to information and those finding some information offensive or harmful. Subjectivity is at the heart of information ethics. But how is subjectivity understood? Can it be understood in ways that broaden ethical reflection to include problems that remain invisible when subjectivity is taken for granted and when how it is created remains unquestioned? This article proposes some answers by investigating the meaning and role of subjectivity in information ethics.[In an article on cyberethics (2000), I asserted that there was no information ethics in any special sense beyond the application of general ethical principles to information services. Here, I take a more expansive view.]

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.267-277

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=3778,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This entry discusses many of the ethical considerations in the library and information science professions: collection development, censorship, privacy, reference services, copyright, administrative concerns, information access, technology-related issues, and problems with conflicting loyalties. It surveys the factors that affect ethical deliberations in the information professions: social utility, survival, social responsibility, and respect for individuality. It also looks at professional factors in ethical deliberations, such as professional codes of ethics, and the values that support ethical principles of professional conduct: truth, tolerance, individual liberty, justice and beauty. In the final section, it indicates the kinds of actions to promote ethical conduct at the organizational, professional and individual levels. As a final caveat, it indicates that ethical decisions require deliberation and reflection. While one can articulate values, factors, codes, and actions, they inform ethical reflection that must often confront and negotiate dilemmas and tensions.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=899,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The scale and complexity of the data and algorithms used in artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems present significant challenges for anticipating their ethical, legal, and policy implications. Given these challenges, who does the work of AI ethics, and how do they do it? This study reports findings from interviews with 26 stakeholders in AI research, law, and policy. The primary themes are that the work of AI ethics is structured by personal values and professional commitments, and that it involves situated meaning-making through data and algorithms. Given the stakes involved, it is not enough to simply satisfy that AI will not behave unethically; rather, the work of AI ethics needs to be incentivized.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.3, S.311-322

0.0028451679 = product of:
  0.008535503 = sum of:
    0.008535503 = product of:
      0.017071007 = sum of:
        0.017071007 = weight(_text_:of in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017071007 = score(doc=2451,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This volume examines 3 critical debates of the post-industrial society: culture and technology, information society, and postmodernism. It aims to provide theoretical and methodological underpinnings for the analysis and design of information, communication and multimedia technologies. It is a thoroughly interdisciplinara volume, which will be of interest to students, researchers and practitioners in a wide area of disciplines including information and communication systems, education and social sciences

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: COOLEY, M.: Visions and problems of the post-industrial society; GILL, K.S.: Knowledge and the post-industrial society; LYTJE, I.: Media and the cultural condition: language and education; WHISTON, T.: Knowledge and sustainable development: towards the furtherance of a global communication system; SHIPLEY, P.: The keyboard blues: modern technology and the rights and risks of people at work; LEAL, F.: Ethics is fragile, goodness is not; HIROSE, L.M.: Organisational spaces and intelligent machines: a metaphorical approach to ethics; THORPE, J.: Information system design: human centres approaches; BESSELAAR, P. van den u. T. MOM: Technological change, social innovation and employment; JONES, M.: Empowerment and enslavement: business process reeingineering and the transformation of work; LEVY, P.: The role of creativity in post-industrial society: exploring the implications of non-conventional technologies for work and management organisation; JANSEN, A.: The global information society and rural economics; DAY, P.: Information communication technology and society: a community-based approach; CYSNE, F.P.: Technology transfer and development; COOPER, J.: Information, knowledge and empowerment: the role of information in rural development; CLAY, J.: Participative citizenry in the information ages: the role of science and technology towards democratic education in a multicultural society; TAYLOR, J.: New media and cultural representation; BLACK, M.T.: Consensus and authenticity in representations: simulation as participative theatre; GORAYSKA, B. u. J.L. MEY: Cognitive technology; BOYNE, C.W.: Electronic mail, IT productivity and workplace culture; Squires, P.: Deadly technology in the post-industrial society: a case study of firearms and firearms control; COLE, M. u. D. HILL: Resitance postmodernism: emancipatory politics for a new era or academic chic for a defeatist intelligentsia?; McFEE, G.: Postmodernism, dance and post-industrial society; MULLER, R.C.: Creativity constellation for innovation and cooperation

0.0027899165 = product of:
  0.008369749 = sum of:
    0.008369749 = product of:
      0.016739499 = sum of:
        0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016739499 = score(doc=1134,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Personal data play a fundamental role in contemporary socioeconomic dynamics, with one of its primary aspects being the potential to facilitate discriminatory situations. This situation impacts the knowledge organization field especially because it considers personal data as elements (facets) to categorize persons under an economic and sometimes discriminatory perspective. The research corpus was collected at Scopus and Web of Science until the end of 2021, under the terms "data discrimination", "algorithmic bias", "algorithmic discrimination" and "fair algorithms". The obtained results allowed to infer that the analyzed knowledge domain predominantly incorporates personal data, whether in its behavioral dimension or in the scope of the so-called sensitive data. These data are susceptible to the action of algorithms of different orders, such as relevance, filtering, predictive, social ranking, content recommendation and random classification. Such algorithms can have discriminatory biases in their programming related to gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, age, social class, socioeconomic profile, physical appearance, and political positioning.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: 4th International Conference on the Ethics of Information and Knowledge Organization, June 8-9, University of Lille, France.

0.0027618767 = product of:
  0.00828563 = sum of:
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 6847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=6847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.57, [=Suppl.20]

0.0027618767 = product of:
  0.00828563 = sum of:
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information ethics. 17(2008) no.1, S.28-42

0.0027618767 = product of:
  0.00828563 = sum of:
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=1698,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch

0.0027618767 = product of:
  0.00828563 = sum of:
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=1065,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper explores the ethics of classification. The paper outlines recent conceptual moves in knowledge organization research and shows that contemporary classification theory is based on a pragmatic understanding of the world. It suggests that unjust statements and assumptions about the world challenge contemporary library classifications and that a proper response is needed. It outlines a framework for the development of ethical classifications based on MacIntyre's practice-based ethical theory. It provides a framework within which editors and managers of library classifications can make ethically sound decisions.

0.0027335489 = product of:
  0.008200646 = sum of:
    0.008200646 = product of:
      0.016401293 = sum of:
        0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016401293 = score(doc=5518,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classification and the organization of information are directly connected to issues surrounding social justice, diversity, and inclusion. This paper is written from the standpoint that political and epistemological aspects of knowledge organization are fundamental to research and practice and suggests ways to integrate social justice and diversity issues into courses on the organization of information.

0.0023918552 = product of:
  0.0071755657 = sum of:
    0.0071755657 = product of:
      0.014351131 = sum of:
        0.014351131 = weight(_text_:of in 1602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014351131 = score(doc=1602,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1602, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Acting ethically presents challenges to professional people in an age where there is little consensus on moral beliefs and where competitive practices are increasingly commonplace in the workplace. Professionals dealing with information face particular challenges since information is often regarded as a public good, freely available to everyone as part of a free society. However, information can also be sensitive, confidential and wrong. The dilemmas which arise in this professional area are examined with reference to the wider and deeper ethical issues involved.

Footnote

Festschrift article to mark the retirement of Douglas Anderson from 24 years at the School of Information and Media, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 7424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=7424,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 7424, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7424)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Offers advice on using the Internet network. Descusses the need for training, suggests rules for Internet use and examining ethical issues including: misuse of service, viruses and security

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 1908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=1908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1908, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 2136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=2136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

Contributions to the study of computer science; no.4

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 3057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=3057,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3057, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3057)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 930, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 2450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=2450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 2455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=2455,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2455, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2455)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge u. Kapitel: HENRICHS, N.: Menschsein im Informationszeitalter; WIEGERLING, K.: Medium und Verhalten; BOUGNOUX, D.: Qui a peur de l'information?; CAPURRO, R.: Moral issues in information science; FROEHLICH, T.J.: Ethical considerations in technology transfer; DOCTOR, R.D.: Information technologies and social equity: confronting the revolution; BARBES, R.F.: Ethical and legal issues raised by information technology: the professional producer-product mix; FROEHLICH, T.J.: Ethics, ideologies, and practices of information technology and systems; Du MONT, R.R.: Ethics in librarianship: a management model; HAUPTMANN, R.: Ethical concerns in librarianship: an overview; SWAN, J.: Ethics inside and out: the case of Guidoriccio; SMITH, M.M.: Infoethics for leaders: models of moral agency in the information environment; KOSTREWSKI, B.J. u. C. OPPENHEIM: Ethics in information science; FROHMANN, B.: Knowledge and power in information science: a discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint 'Ein- u. weiterführende Bibliographie'; 'Ethik-Kodizes'