Search (236 results, page 2 of 12)

0.004830713 = product of:
  0.038645703 = sum of:
    0.021961471 = weight(_text_:information in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021961471 = score(doc=4244,freq=76.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.4184661 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
          8.717798 = tf(freq=76.0), with freq of:
            76.0 = termFreq=76.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
    0.016684232 = product of:
      0.033368465 = sum of:
        0.033368465 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033368465 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16061439 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.20775513 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Does information science have a theory of information? There seems to be a tendency within information science to seek a theory of information, but the search is apparently unproductive (Hjoerland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999). This review brings together work from inside and outside the field of information science, showing that other perspectives an information theory could be of assistance. Constructivist claims that emphasize the uniqueness of the individual experience of information, maintaining that there is no information independent of our social practices (Cornelius, 1996a), are also mentioned. Such a position would be echoed in a symbolic interactionist approach. Conventionally, the history of attempts to develop a theory of information date from the publication of Claude Shannon's work in 1948, and his joint publication of that work with an essay by Warren Weaver in 1949 (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963). Information science found itself alongside many other disciplines attempting to develop a theory of information (Machlup & Mansfield, 1983). From Weaver's essay stems the claim that the basic concepts of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication, which Shannon later referred to as a theory of information, can be applied in disciplines outside electrical engineering, even in the social sciences.
Shannon provides a model whereby an information source selects a desired message, out of a set of possible messages, that is then formed into a signal. The signal is sent over the communication channel to a receiver, which then transforms the signal back to a message that is relayed to its destination (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963, p. 7). Problems connected with this model have remained with us. Some of the concepts are ambiguous; the identification of information with a process has spancelled the debate; the problems of measuring the amount of information, the relation of information to meaning, and questions about the truth value of information have remained. Balancing attention between the process and the act of receiving information, and deterrnining the character of the receiver, has also been the focus of work and debate. Information science has mined work from other disciplines involving information theory and has also produced its own theory. The desire for theory remains (Hjorland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999), but what theory will deliver is unclear. The distinction between data and information, or communication and information, is not of concern here. The convention that data, at some point of use, become information, and that information is transferred in a process of communication suffices for this discussion. Substitution of any of these terms is not a problem. More problematic is the relationship between information and knowledge. It seems accepted that at some point the data by perception, or selection, become information, which feeds and alters knowledge structures in a human recipient. What that process of alteration is, and its implications, remain problematic. This review considers the following questions: 1. What can be gleaned from the history of reviews of information in information science? 2. What current maps, guides, and surveys are available to elaborate our understanding of the issues? 3. Is there a parallel development of work outside information science an information theory of use to us? 4. Is there a dominant view of information within information science? 5. What can we say about issues like measurement, meaning, and misinformation? 6. Is there other current work of relevance that can assist attempts, in information science, to develop a theory of information?

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 36(2002), S.393-426

Theme

Information

0.004735317 = product of:
  0.037882537 = sum of:
    0.017630402 = weight(_text_:information in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017630402 = score(doc=209,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 209, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=209)
    0.020252137 = product of:
      0.040504273 = sum of:
        0.040504273 = weight(_text_:22 in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040504273 = score(doc=209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.104688935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 209, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This annotated bibliography lists materials dealing with information literacy - including instruction in the use of information resources, research, and computer skills related to retrieving, using, and evaluating information. This review, the 20th to be published in RSR, includes items in English published in 1993

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.4, S.81-

0.0043546003 = product of:
  0.034836803 = sum of:
    0.01576911 = weight(_text_:information in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01576911 = score(doc=4283,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.3004734 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
    0.019067694 = product of:
      0.038135387 = sum of:
        0.038135387 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038135387 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16061439 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.23743443 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Information retrieval - the retrieval, primarily, of documents or textual material - is fundamentally a linguistic process. At the very least we must describe what we want and match that description with descriptions of the information that is available to us. Furthermore, when we describe what we want, we must mean something by that description. This is a deceptively simple act, but such linguistic events have been the grist for philosophical analysis since Aristotle. Although there are complexities involved in referring to authors, document types, or other categories of information retrieval context, here I wish to focus an one of the most problematic activities in information retrieval: the description of the intellectual content of information items. And even though I take information retrieval to involve the description and retrieval of written text, what I say here is applicable to any information item whose intellectual content can be described for retrieval-books, documents, images, audio clips, video clips, scientific specimens, engineering schematics, and so forth. For convenience, though, I will refer only to the description and retrieval of documents. The description of intellectual content can go wrong in many obvious ways. We may describe what we want incorrectly; we may describe it correctly but in such general terms that its description is useless for retrieval; or we may describe what we want correctly, but misinterpret the descriptions of available information, and thereby match our description of what we want incorrectly. From a linguistic point of view, we can be misunderstood in the process of retrieval in many ways. Because the philosophy of language deals specifically with how we are understood and mis-understood, it should have some use for understanding the process of description in information retrieval. First, however, let us examine more closely the kinds of misunderstandings that can occur in information retrieval. We use language in searching for information in two principal ways. We use it to describe what we want and to discriminate what we want from other information that is available to us but that we do not want. Description and discrimination together articulate the goals of the information search process; they also delineate the two principal ways in which language can fail us in this process. Van Rijsbergen (1979) was the first to make this distinction, calling them "representation" and "discrimination.""

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.3-50

0.0040778522 = product of:
  0.032622818 = sum of:
    0.018322049 = weight(_text_:information in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018322049 = score(doc=5079,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.014300769 = product of:
      0.028601538 = sum of:
        0.028601538 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028601538 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16061439 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.17807582 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411

Theme

Information

0.0034647295 = product of:
  0.027717836 = sum of:
    0.011516129 = weight(_text_:information in 7415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011516129 = score(doc=7415,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 7415, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7415)
    0.016201708 = product of:
      0.032403417 = sum of:
        0.032403417 = weight(_text_:22 in 7415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032403417 = score(doc=7415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.104688935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7415, 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=7415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

State of the art review of natural language processing updating an earlier review published in ARIST 22(1987). Discusses important developments that have allowed for significant advances in the field of natural language processing: materials and resources; knowledge based systems and statistical approaches; and a strong emphasis on evaluation. Reviews some natural language processing applications and common problems still awaiting solution. Considers closely related applications such as language generation and th egeneration phase of machine translation which face the same problems as natural language processing. Covers natural language methodologies for information retrieval only briefly

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 31(1996), S.83-119

0.0034647295 = product of:
  0.027717836 = sum of:
    0.011516129 = weight(_text_:information in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011516129 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.016201708 = product of:
      0.032403417 = sum of:
        0.032403417 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032403417 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.104688935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0031032197 = product of:
  0.024825757 = sum of:
    0.0057580643 = weight(_text_:information in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057580643 = score(doc=4281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
    0.019067694 = product of:
      0.038135387 = sum of:
        0.038135387 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038135387 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16061439 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.23743443 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

It is common knowledge that computer interfaces in different cultures vary. Interface designers present information in different languages, use different iconography to designate concepts, and employ different standards for dates, time, and numbers. These manifest differences beg the question of how easily an interface designed in one country can be used in and transferred to another country. Are the challenges involved in adaptation merely cosmetic or are they shaped by more profound forces? Do all cultures respond to interfaces in similar ways, or does culture itself shape user comprehension? If culture is a factor in explaining varied user reactions to comparable interfaces, what specific cultural dimensions are responsible for the divergences? Do differences reside mainly at the level of national cultures, or do they depend an other variables such as class, gender, age, education, and expertise with technology? In the face of a potentially large number of explanatory variables, how do we delimit a workable concept of culture and yet remain cognizant of other factors that might shape the results of culture and interface research? Questions such as these have been asked in the ergonomics community since the early 1970s, when the industrialization of developing countries created a need for more research an cultural differences (Honold, 1999), resulting in an increased interest in the universal applicability of ergonomic principles. This trend continued after the reunification of Germany and the emergence of market economies in Eastern Europe (Nielsen, 1990). In the mid-1990s, as markets outside the U.S. rapidly expanded, it became necessary to develop appropriate user interfaces for non-Western cultures in order to facilitate international cooperation. This fresh impetus for research led to the development of practical guidelines and a body of Gase studies and examples of possible solutions. Most recently we have seen attempts to provide a theoretical foundation for cross-cultural usability engineering and experimental comparison studies (Honold, 1999).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.257-310

0.002282329 = product of:
  0.018258631 = sum of:
    0.00610735 = weight(_text_:information in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00610735 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
    0.01215128 = product of:
      0.02430256 = sum of:
        0.02430256 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02430256 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.104688935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This review of 2004 and 2005 serials literature covers the themes of cost, management, and access. Interwoven through the serials literature of these two years are the importance of collaboration, communication, and linkages between scholars, publishers, subscription agents and other intermediaries, and librarians. The emphasis in the literature is on electronic serials and their impact on publishing, libraries, and vendors. In response to the crisis of escalating journal prices and libraries' dissatisfaction with the Big Deal licensing agreements, Open Access journals and publishing models were promoted. Libraries subscribed to or licensed increasing numbers of electronic serials. As a result, libraries sought ways to better manage licensing and subscription data (not handled by traditional integrated library systems) by implementing electronic resources management systems. In order to provide users with better, faster, and more current information on and access to electronic serials, libraries implemented tools and services to provide A-Z title lists, title by title coverage data, MARC records, and OpenURL link resolvers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0020252136 = product of:
  0.032403417 = sum of:
    0.032403417 = product of:
      0.064806834 = sum of:
        0.064806834 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064806834 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.104688935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029895496 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.0017813104 = product of:
  0.028500967 = sum of:
    0.028500967 = weight(_text_:information in 6714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028500967 = score(doc=6714,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.5430733 = fieldWeight in 6714, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6714)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 27(1992), S.227-264

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.0017630401 = product of:
  0.028208641 = sum of:
    0.028208641 = weight(_text_:information in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028208641 = score(doc=3724,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.xxx-xxx

Theme

Information

0.0017630401 = product of:
  0.028208641 = sum of:
    0.028208641 = weight(_text_:information in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028208641 = score(doc=4115,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Information processing and management. 20(1984), S.417-497

0.0017630401 = product of:
  0.028208641 = sum of:
    0.028208641 = weight(_text_:information in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028208641 = score(doc=4189,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

Theme

Information

0.0017630401 = product of:
  0.028208641 = sum of:
    0.028208641 = weight(_text_:information in 3832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028208641 = score(doc=3832,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 3832, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3832)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 36(2002), S.313-352

0.0017630401 = product of:
  0.028208641 = sum of:
    0.028208641 = weight(_text_:information in 4269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028208641 = score(doc=4269,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 4269, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4269)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.347-394

Theme

Information

0.0016123137 = product of:
  0.025797019 = sum of:
    0.025797019 = weight(_text_:der in 6603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025797019 = score(doc=6603,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06677957 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.38630107 = fieldWeight in 6603, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6603)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Die vorliegende Auswahlbibliographie ist in 9 Themenbereiche unterteilt. Der erste Abschnitt enthält Literatur, in der auf Abstracts und Abstracting-Verfahren allgemein eingegangen und ein Überblick über den Stand der Forschung gegeben wird. Im nächsten Abschnitt werden solche Aufsätze referiert, die die historische Entwicklung des Abstracting beschreiben. Im dritten Teil sind Abstracting-Richtlinien verschiedener Institutionen aufgelistet. Lexikalische, syntaktische und semantische Textkondensierungsverfahren sind das Thema der in Abschnitt 4 präsentierten Arbeiten. Textstrukturen von Abstracts werden unter Punkt 5 betrachtet, und die Arbeiten des nächsten Themenbereiches befassen sich mit dem Problem des Schreibens von Abstracts. Der siebte Abschnitt listet sog. 'maschinelle' und maschinen-unterstützte Abstracting-Methoden auf. Anschließend werden 'maschinelle' und maschinenunterstützte Abstracting-Verfahren, Abstracts im Vergleich zu ihren Primärtexten sowie Abstracts im allgemeien bewertet. Den Abschluß bilden Bibliographien

0.0015426601 = product of:
  0.024682561 = sum of:
    0.024682561 = weight(_text_:information in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024682561 = score(doc=348,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.47031528 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 28(1993), S.45-110

0.0015426601 = product of:
  0.024682561 = sum of:
    0.024682561 = weight(_text_:information in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024682561 = score(doc=351,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.47031528 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 28(1993), S.361-390

0.0015426601 = product of:
  0.024682561 = sum of:
    0.024682561 = weight(_text_:information in 4204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024682561 = score(doc=4204,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.47031528 = fieldWeight in 4204, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4204)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010), S.xxx-xxx

0.0014395161 = product of:
  0.023032257 = sum of:
    0.023032257 = weight(_text_:information in 781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023032257 = score(doc=781,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.43886948 = fieldWeight in 781, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=781)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 20(1985), S.117-151