Search (37 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0080237165 = product of:
  0.048142295 = sum of:
    0.048142295 = product of:
      0.09628459 = sum of:
        0.09628459 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09628459 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, 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=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.0080237165 = product of:
  0.048142295 = sum of:
    0.048142295 = product of:
      0.09628459 = sum of:
        0.09628459 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09628459 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.006968761 = product of:
  0.041812565 = sum of:
    0.041812565 = weight(_text_:web in 1997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041812565 = score(doc=1997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1997)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This bibliography contains selected cataloging tools an the Internet. It is divided into seven sections as follows: authority management and subject headings tools; cataloging tools by type of materials; dictionaries, encyclopedias, and place names; listservs and workshops; software and vendors; technical service professional organizations; and journals and newsletters. Resources are arranged in alphabetical order under each topic. Selected cataloging tools are annotated. There is some overlap since a given web site can cover many tools.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 4275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=4275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 4275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4275)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The preservation of digital objects (defined here as objects in digital form that require a computer to support their existence and display) is obviously an important practical issue for the information professions, with its importance growing daily as more information objects are produced in, or converted to, digital form. Yakel's (2001) review of the field provided a much-needed introduction. At the same time, the complexity of new digital objects continues to increase, challenging existing preservation efforts (Lee, Skattery, Lu, Tang, & McCrary, 2002). The field of information science itself is beginning to pay some reflexive attention to the creation of fragile and unpreservable digital objects. But these concerns focus often an the practical problems of short-term repurposing of digital objects rather than actual preservation, by which I mean the activity of carrying digital objects from one software generation to another, undertaken for purposes beyond the original reasons for creating the objects. For preservation in this sense to be possible, information science as a discipline needs to be active in the formulation of, and advocacy for, national information policies. Such policies will need to challenge the predominant cultural expectation of planned obsolescence for information resources, and cultural artifacts in general.

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The literature of the evaluation of Internet search engines is reviewed. Although there have been many studies, there has been little consistency in the way such studies have been carried out. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that recall is virtually impossible to calculate in the fast changing Internet environment, and therefore the traditional Cranfield type of evaluation is not usually possible. A variety of alternative evaluation methods has been suggested to overcome this difficulty. The authors recommend that a standardised set of tools is developed for the evaluation of web search engines so that, in future, comparisons can be made between search engines more effectively, and that variations in performance of any given search engine over time can be tracked. The paper itself does not provide such a standard set of tools, but it investigates the issues and makes preliminary recommendations of the types of tools needed

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 1718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=1718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1718)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This review describes experimental designs (users, search tasks, measures, etc.) used by 31 controlled user studies of information visualization (IV) tools for textual information retrieval (IR) and a meta-analysis of the reported statistical effects. Comparable experimental designs allow research designers to compare their results with other reports, and support the development of experimentally verified design guidelines concerning which IV techniques are better suited to which types of IR tasks. The studies generally use a within-subject design with 15 or more undergraduate students performing browsing to known-item tasks on sets of at least 1,000 full-text articles or Web pages on topics of general interest/news. Results of the meta-analysis (N = 8) showed no significant effects of the IV tool as compared with a text-only equivalent, but the set shows great variability suggesting an inadequate basis of comparison. Experimental design recommendations are provided which would support comparison of existing IV tools for IR usability testing.

0.0045263437 = product of:
  0.027158061 = sum of:
    0.027158061 = weight(_text_:web in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027158061 = score(doc=1270,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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).

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Computer Based Training

0.0040118583 = product of:
  0.024071148 = sum of:
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0040118583 = product of:
  0.024071148 = sum of:
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0040118583 = product of:
  0.024071148 = sum of:
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.003510376 = product of:
  0.021062255 = sum of:
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.0032769889 = product of:
  0.019661933 = sum of:
    0.019661933 = weight(_text_:computer in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019661933 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.12113102 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0026132853 = product of:
  0.015679711 = sum of:
    0.015679711 = weight(_text_:web in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015679711 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22