Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.046420224 = product of:
  0.09284045 = sum of:
    0.09284045 = product of:
      0.27852133 = sum of:
        0.27852133 = weight(_text_:objects in 4275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27852133 = score(doc=4275,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.8808569 = fieldWeight in 4275, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4275)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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.

0.038365204 = product of:
  0.07673041 = sum of:
    0.07673041 = product of:
      0.15346082 = sum of:
        0.15346082 = weight(_text_:light in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15346082 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

State of the art review of information retrieval systems, defined as systems retrieving documents a sopposed to numerical data. Explains the classic Cranfield studies that have served as a standard for retrieval testing since the 1960s and discusses the Cranfield model and its relevance based measures of retrieval effectiveness. Details sosme of the problems with the Cranfield instruments and issues of validity and reliability, generalizability, usefulness and basic concepts. Discusses the evaluation of the Internet search engines in light of the Cranfield model, noting the very real differences between batch systems (Cranfield) and interactive systems (Internet). Because the Internet collection is not fixed, it is impossible to determine recall as a measure of retrieval effectiveness. considers future directions in evaluating information retrieval systems

0.03288446 = product of:
  0.06576892 = sum of:
    0.06576892 = product of:
      0.13153784 = sum of:
        0.13153784 = weight(_text_:light in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13153784 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, 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.

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, 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=3962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 334, 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=334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.109-145

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 335, 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=335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.41-77

0.032240298 = product of:
  0.064480595 = sum of:
    0.064480595 = product of:
      0.12896119 = sum of:
        0.12896119 = weight(_text_:22 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12896119 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 337, 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=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.79-108

0.030946817 = product of:
  0.061893634 = sum of:
    0.061893634 = product of:
      0.1856809 = sum of:
        0.1856809 = weight(_text_:objects in 8330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1856809 = score(doc=8330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 8330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8330)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reviews the literature, published in 1988, covering the cataloguing of audio-visual materials including: computerised files; music and sound recordings; film and video; graphic materials and 3-dimensional objects; maps; and preservation.

0.02821026 = product of:
  0.05642052 = sum of:
    0.05642052 = product of:
      0.11284104 = sum of:
        0.11284104 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11284104 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

0.021922972 = product of:
  0.043845944 = sum of:
    0.043845944 = product of:
      0.08769189 = sum of:
        0.08769189 = weight(_text_:light in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08769189 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.255235 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified. Design/methodology/approach The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson. Findings Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered. Research limitations/implications The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective. Practical implications The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information. Social implications Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems. Originality/value The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.

0.020150186 = product of:
  0.040300373 = sum of:
    0.040300373 = product of:
      0.080600746 = sum of:
        0.080600746 = weight(_text_:22 in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080600746 = score(doc=209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.018568087 = product of:
  0.037136175 = sum of:
    0.037136175 = product of:
      0.111408524 = sum of:
        0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 2215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111408524 = score(doc=2215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2215)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

State of the art review of methods available for accessing collections of digital images by means of manual and automatic indexing. Distinguishes between concept based indexing, in which images and the objects represented, are manually identified and described in terms of what they are and represent, and content based indexing, in which features of images (such as colours) are automatically identified and extracted. The main discussion is arranged in 6 sections: studies of image systems and their use; approaches to indexing images; image attributes; concept based indexing; content based indexing; and browsing in image retrieval. The performance of current image retrieval systems is largely untested and they still lack an extensive history and tradition of evaluation and standards for assessing performance. Concludes that there is a significant amount of research to be done before image retrieval systems can reach the state of development of text retrieval systems

0.018568087 = product of:
  0.037136175 = sum of:
    0.037136175 = product of:
      0.111408524 = sum of:
        0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111408524 = score(doc=4293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 4293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4293)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A community of practice has recently been defined as "a flexible group of professionals, informally bound by common interests, who interact through interdependent tasks guided by a common purpose thereby embodying a store of common knowledge" (Jubert, 1999, p. 166). The association of communities of practice with the production of collective knowledge has long been recognized, and they have been objects of study for a number of decades in the context of professional communication, particularly communication in science (Abbott, 1988; Bazerman & Paradis, 1991). Recently, however, they have been invoked in the domain of organization studies as sites where people learn and share insights. If, as Stinchcombe suggests, an organization is "a set of stable social relations, dehberately created, with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes" (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142), where does this "flexible" and "embodied" source of knowledge fit? Can communities of practice be harnessed, engineered, and managed like other organizational groups, or does their strength lie in the fact that they operate outside the stable and persistent social relations that characterize the organization?

0.018568087 = product of:
  0.037136175 = sum of:
    0.037136175 = product of:
      0.111408524 = sum of:
        0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111408524 = score(doc=1978,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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.

0.016120149 = product of:
  0.032240298 = sum of:
    0.032240298 = product of:
      0.064480595 = sum of:
        0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064480595 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2193, 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=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 14(1992) nos.3/4, S.5-22

0.016120149 = product of:
  0.032240298 = sum of:
    0.032240298 = product of:
      0.064480595 = sum of:
        0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 8460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064480595 = score(doc=8460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 8460, 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=8460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.2, S.31-40