Search (95 results, page 5 of 5)

0.0017899501 = product of:
  0.0035799001 = sum of:
    0.0035799001 = product of:
      0.0071598003 = sum of:
        0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071598003 = score(doc=4281,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=4272,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4272, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the early 1990s, much of the enthusiasm for the use of electronic media to enhance scholarly communication focused an electronic journals, especially electronic-only, (pure) e journals (see for example, Peek & Newby's [1996] anthology). Much of the systematic research an the use of electronic media to enhance scholarly communication also focused an electronic journals. However, by the late 1990s, numerous scientific publishers had transformed their paper journals (p journals) into paper and electronic journals (p-e journals) and sold them via subscription models that did not provide the significant costs savings, speed of access, or breadth of audience that pure e -journal advocates had expected (Okerson, 1996). In 2001, a group of senior life scientists led a campaign to have publishers make their journals freely available online six months after publication (Russo, 2001). The campaign leaders, using the name "Public Library of Science," asked scientists to boycott journals that did not comply with these demands for open access. Although the proposal was discussed in scientific magazines and conferences, it apparently did not persuade any journal publishers to comply (Young, 2002). Most productive scientists, who work for major universities and research institutes

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=4284,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is an area of research and application that explores how computers can be used to understand and manipulate natural language text or speech to do useful things. NLP researchers aim to gather knowledge an how human beings understand and use language so that appropriate tools and techniques can be developed to make computer systems understand and manipulate natural languages to perform desired tasks. The foundations of NLP lie in a number of disciplines, namely, computer and information sciences, linguistics, mathematics, electrical and electronic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics, and psychology. Applications of NLP include a number of fields of study, such as machine translation, natural language text processing and summarization, user interfaces, multilingual and cross-language information retrieval (CLIR), speech recognition, artificial intelligence, and expert systems. One important application area that is relatively new and has not been covered in previous ARIST chapters an NLP relates to the proliferation of the World Wide Web and digital libraries.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=1978,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.
Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.

Type

a

0.0017433972 = product of:
  0.0034867944 = sum of:
    0.0034867944 = product of:
      0.006973589 = sum of:
        0.006973589 = weight(_text_:a in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006973589 = score(doc=2467,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13131565 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
Consider movie listings in newspapers. Most Canadian newspapers list movie showtimes in two large blocks, for the two major theatre chains. The listings are ordered by region (in large cities), then theatre, then movie, and finally by showtime. Anyone wondering where and when a particular movie is playing must scan the complete listings. Determining what movies are playing in the next half hour is very difficult. When movie listings went onto the web, most sites used a simple faceted organization, always with movie name and theatre, and perhaps with region or neighbourhood (thankfully, theatre chains were left out). They make it easy to pick a theatre and see what movies are playing there, or to pick a movie and see what theatres are showing it. To complete the system, the sites should allow users to browse by neighbourhood and showtime, and to order the results in any way they desired. Thus could people easily find answers to such questions as, "Where is the new James Bond movie playing?" "What's showing at the Roxy tonight?" "I'm going to be out in in Little Finland this afternoon with three hours to kill starting at 2 ... is anything interesting playing?" A hypertext, faceted classification system makes more useful information more easily available to the user. Reading the books and articles below in chronological order will show a certain progression: suggestions that faceting and hypertext might work well, confidence that facets would work well if only someone would make such a system, and finally the beginning of serious work on actually designing, building, and testing faceted web sites. There is a solid basis of how to make faceted classifications (see Vickery in Recommended), but their application online is just starting. Work on XFML (see Van Dijck's work in Recommended) the Exchangeable Faceted Metadata Language, will make this easier. If it follows previous patterns, parts of the Internet community will embrace the idea and make open source software available for others to reuse. It will be particularly beneficial if professionals in both information studies and computer science can work together to build working systems, standards, and code. Each can benefit from the other's expertise in what can be a very complicated and technical area. One particularly nice thing about this area of research is that people interested in combining facets and the web often have web sites where they post their writings.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4275,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4275, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4282,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4282, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We know this Web world. We live in it, particularly those of us in developed countries. Even if we do not go online daily, we live with itour culture is imprinted with online activity and vocabulary: e-mailing colleagues, surfing the Web, posting Web pages, blogging, gender-bending in cyberspace, texting and instant messaging friends, engaging in ecommerce, entering an online chat room, or morphing in an online world. We use it-to conduct business, find information, talk with friends and colleagues. We know it is something separate, yet we incorporate it into our daily lives. We identify with it, bringing to it behaviors and expectations we hold for the world in general. We approach it as explorers and entrepreneurs, ready to move into unknown opportunities and territory; creators and engineers, eager to build new structures; utopians for whom "the world of the Web" represents the chance to start again and "get it right" this time; utilitarians, ready to get what we can out of the new structures; and dystopians, for whom this is just more evidence that there is no way to "get it right." The word "world" has many connotations. The Oxford English Dictionary (http://dictionary.oed.com) gives 27 definitions for the noun "world" including: - The sphere within which one's interests are bound up or one's activities find scope; (one's) sphere of action or thought; the "realm" within which one moves or lives. - A group or system of things or beings associated by common characteristics (denoted by a qualifying word or phrase), or considered as constituting a unity. - Human society considered in relation to its activities, difficulties, temptations, and the like; hence, contextually, the ways, practices, or customs of the people among whom one lives; the occupations and interests of society at large.

Type

a

0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 4299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=4299,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 4299, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The emergence of digital libraries (DLs), at the interface of library and information science with computer and communication technologies, helped to expand significantly the literature in all of these areas during the late 1990s. The pace of development is reflected by the number of special issues of major journals in information science and computer science, and the increasing number of workshops and conferences an digital libraries. For example, starting in 1995, the Communications of the ACM has devoted three special issues to the topic (Fox, Akscyn, Furuta, & Leggett, 1995; Fox & Marchionini, 1998, 2001). The Journal of the American Society for Information Science devoted two issues to digital libraries (H. Chen, 2000; Fox & Lunin, 1993); Information Processing & Management and the Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation each had one special issue (Chen & Fox, 1996; Marchionini & Fox, 1999). The domain of digital libraries, though still evolving, has matured over the last decade, as demonstrated by coverage through D-Lib (http://www.dlib.org), the International Journal an Digital Libraries (http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00799), and two overview works (W Y Arms, 2000; Lesk, 1997; both of which have also served as textbooks). Sun Microsystems published a small book to guide those planning a digital library (Noerr, 2000), and IBM has been developing commercial products for digital libraries since 1994 (IBM, 2000). A number of Web sites have extensive sets of pointers to information an DLs (D-Lib Forum, 2001; Fox, 1998a; Habing, 1998; Hein, 2000; Schwartz, 2001a, 2001b). Further, the field has attracted the attention of diverse academics, research groups, and practitionersmany of whom have attended tutorials, workshops, or conferences, e.g., the Joint Conference an Digital Libraries, which is a sequel to a separate series run by ACM and IEEE-CS. Therefore, it is timely that ARIST publishes this first review focusing specifically an digital libraries. There has been no ARIST chapter to date directly dealing with the area of DLs, though some related domains have been covered-particularly: information retrieval, user interfaces (Marchionini & Komlodi, 1998), social informatics of DLs (Bishop & Star, 1996), and scholarly communication (see Borgman and Furner's chapter in this volume). This chapter provides an overview of the diverse aspects and dimensions of DL research, practice, and literature, identifying trends and delineating research directions.

Type

a

0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=662,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The CIBER group at University College London are currently evaluating a distance education initiative funded by the Department of Health, providing in-service training to NHS staff via DiTV and satellite to PC systems. This paper aims to provide the context for the project by outlining a short history of distance education, describing the media used in providing remote education, and to review research literature on achievement, attitude, barriers to learning and learner characteristics. Design/methodology/approach - Literature review, with particular, although not exclusive, emphasis on health. Findings - The literature shows little difference in achievement between distance and traditional learners, although using a variety of media, both to deliver pedagogic material and to facilitate communication, does seem to enhance learning. Similarly, attitudinal studies appear to show that the greater number of channels offered, the more positive students are about their experiences. With regard to barriers to completing courses, the main problems appear to be family or work obligations. Research limitations/implications - The research work this review seeks to consider is examining "on-demand" showing of filmed lectures via a DiTV system. The literature on DiTV applications research, however, is dominated by studies of simultaneous viewing by on-site and remote students, rather than "on-demand". Practical implications - Current research being carried out by the authors should enhance the findings accrued by the literature, by exploring the impact of "on-demand" video material, delivered by DiTV - something no previous research appears to have examined. Originality/value - Discusses different electronic systems and their exploitation for distance education, and cross-references these with several aspects evaluated in the literature: achievement, attitude, barriers to take-up or success, to provide a holistic picture hitherto missing from the literature.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=43,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More than 5000 publications related to library user instruction and information literacy have been published and reviewed in the past thirty years. New developments in education and technology during the last two decades have affected user instruction and have led to the emergence of information literacy. Based on needs related to the rapid development of information technology and the evolving information society, librarians have begun teaching information skills to all types of users to ensure that they gain information fluency so they can become productive and effective information users both in the education environment and in the work environment. The number of publications related to user instruction and information literacy, like the field itself, show phenomenal growth during the past three decades as demonstrated by the fact that in 1973 twenty-eight publications were reviewed, and in 2002 more than 300 publications dealing with the topic of information literacy will be issued. It is noteworthy that in the last decade there has been a tremendous growth in publications related to information literacy globally. During the 1970s, publications indicate that user instruction activities were of concern primarily to librarians in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. At the present time, publications indicate a major concern with information literacy not only in the countries mentioned above but also in China, Germany, Mexico, Scandinavia, Singapore, South Africa, South America, Spain, and others. On an annual hasis, the majority of the publications have addressed information literacy in academic libraries (60 percent) followed by publications related to information literacy instruction in school media centers (20 percent).

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4243,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4243, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Inequities in information creation, production, distribution, and use are nothing new. Throughout human history some people have been more educated, better connected, more widely traveled, or more wellinformed than others. Until recently, relatively few have enjoyed the benefits of literacy, and even fewer could afford to own books. In the age of mass media, societies and social groups have varied dramatically in terms of their access to and uses of print, radio, television, film, telephone, and telegraph. What is new, however, is the growing attention being given to informational inequities in an increasingly information-driven global economy. Across disciplinary, national, and cultural boundaries, the widespread agreement is that the use of newer information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly the Internet, has accelerated the production, circulation, and consumption of information in every form. But also a growing sense has arisen that ICTs have helped to exacerbate existing differences in information access and use, and may even have fostered new types of barriers. As Hess and Ostrom (2001, p. 45) point out, "Distributed digital technologies have the dual capacity to increase as well as restrict access to information."

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4288,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The rationale for using information systems is to find information that helps us in our daily activities, be they tasks or interests. Systems are expected to support us in searching for and identifying useful information. Although the activities and tasks performed by humans generate information needs and searching, they have attracted little attention in studies of information searching. Such studies have concentrated an search tasks rather than the activities that trigger them. It is obvious that our understanding of information searching is only partial, if we are not able to connect aspects of searching to the related task. The expected contribution of information to the task is reflected in relevance assessments of the information items found, and in the search tactics and use of the system in general. Taking the task into account seems to be a necessary condition for understanding and explaining information searching, and, by extension, for effective systems design.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This chapter has three purposes: to illuminate the ways in which people discover, shape, or create information as part of their lives and work; to consider how the resources and rules of people's situations facilitate or limit discovery of information; and to introduce the idea of a sociotechnical systems design science that is founded in part an understanding the discovery of information in context. In addressing these purposes the chapter focuses an both theoretical and research works in information studies and related fields that shed light on information as something that is embedded in the fabric of people's lives and work. Thus, the discovery of information view presented here characterizes information as being constructed through involvement in life's activities, problems, tasks, and social and technological structures, as opposed to being independent and context free. Given this process view, discovering information entails engagement, reflection, learning, and action-all the behaviors that research subjects often speak of as making sense-above and beyond the traditional focus of the information studies field: seeking without consideration of connections across time.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=4283,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.""

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a