Search (77 results, page 1 of 4)

0.03070492 = product of:
  0.046057377 = sum of:
    0.02275971 = weight(_text_:of in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02275971 = score(doc=40,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.023297668 = product of:
      0.046595335 = sum of:
        0.046595335 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595335 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Web of Science

0.02482993 = product of:
  0.037244894 = sum of:
    0.010618987 = weight(_text_:of in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618987 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In der Session "Knowledge Representation" auf der ISI 2021 wurden unter der Moderation von Jürgen Reischer (Uni Regensburg) drei Projekte vorgestellt, in denen Knowledge Representation mit RDF umgesetzt wird. Die Domänen sind erfreulich unterschiedlich, die gemeinsame Klammer indes ist die Absicht, den Zugang zu Forschungsdaten zu verbessern: - Japanese Visual Media Graph - Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities - Forschungsdaten im konzeptuellen Modell von FRBR

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.018822055 = product of:
  0.028233081 = sum of:
    0.018248366 = weight(_text_:of in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018248366 = score(doc=405,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.23752278 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.009984714 = product of:
      0.019969428 = sum of:
        0.019969428 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019969428 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.015518706 = product of:
  0.02327806 = sum of:
    0.006636867 = weight(_text_:of in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006636867 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.086386204 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
    0.016641192 = product of:
      0.033282384 = sum of:
        0.033282384 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033282384 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.

0.013312953 = product of:
  0.039938856 = sum of:
    0.039938856 = product of:
      0.07987771 = sum of:
        0.07987771 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07987771 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.012388818 = product of:
  0.037166454 = sum of:
    0.037166454 = weight(_text_:of in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037166454 = score(doc=572,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.48376274 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.

0.011094129 = product of:
  0.033282384 = sum of:
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 5846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=5846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5846, 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=5846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:40

0.011094129 = product of:
  0.033282384 = sum of:
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5906, 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=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:28

0.011094129 = product of:
  0.033282384 = sum of:
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5907, 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=5907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:11:24

0.011094129 = product of:
  0.033282384 = sum of:
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:16:24

0.011094129 = product of:
  0.033282384 = sum of:
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 236, 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=236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 5.2021 22:10:24

0.011094129 = product of:
  0.033282384 = sum of:
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2023, H.1, S.22-25

0.009643144 = product of:
  0.028929431 = sum of:
    0.028929431 = weight(_text_:of in 1048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028929431 = score(doc=1048,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 1048, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1048)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper offers a novel interpretation of Hans Jonas' analysis of metabolism, the centrepiece of Jonas' philosophy of organism, in relation to recent controversies regarding the phenomenological dimension of life-mind continuity as understood within 'autopoietic' enactivism (AE). Jonas' philosophy of organism chiefly inspired AE's development of what we might call 'the phenomenological life-mind continuity thesis' (PLMCT), the claim that certain phenomenological features of human experience are central to a proper scientific understanding of both life and mind, and as such central features of all living organisms. After discussing the understanding of PLMCT within AE, and recent criticisms thereof, I develop a reading of Jonas' analysis of metabolism, in light of previous commentators, which emphasizes its systematicity and transcendental flavour. The central thought is that, for Jonas, the attribution of certain phenomenological features is a necessary precondition for our understanding of the possibility of metabolism, rather than being derivable from metabolism itself. I argue that my interpretation strengthens Jonas' contribution to AE's justification for ascribing certain phenomenological features to life across the board. However, it also emphasises the need to complement Jonas' analysis with an explanatory account of organic identity in order to vindicate these phenomenological ascriptions in a scientific context.

0.009571825 = product of:
  0.028715475 = sum of:
    0.028715475 = weight(_text_:of in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028715475 = score(doc=198,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Within the knowledge organization systems (KOS) set, the term "ontology" is paradigmatic of the terminological ambiguity in different typologies. Contributing to this situation is the indiscriminate association of the term "ontology", both as a specific type of KOS and as a process of categorization, due to the interdisciplinary use of the term with different meanings. We present a systematization of the perspectives of different authors of ontologies, as representational artifacts, seeking to contribute to terminological clarification. Focusing the analysis on the intention, semantics and modulation of ontologies, it was possible to notice two broad perspectives regarding ontologies as artifacts that coexist in the knowledge organization systems spectrum. We have ontologies viewed, on the one hand, as an evolution in terms of complexity of traditional conceptual systems, and on the other hand, as a system that organizes ontological rather than epistemological knowledge. The focus of ontological analysis is the item to model and not the intentions that motivate the construction of the system.

0.009571825 = product of:
  0.028715475 = sum of:
    0.028715475 = weight(_text_:of in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028715475 = score(doc=1045,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 1045, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1045)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The initial dimensions extracted by latent semantic analysis (LSA) of a document-term matrixhave been shown to mainly display marginal effects, which are irrelevant for informationretrieval. To improve the performance of LSA, usually the elements of the raw document-term matrix are weighted and the weighting exponent of singular values can be adjusted.An alternative information retrieval technique that ignores the marginal effects is correspon-dence analysis (CA). In this paper, the information retrieval performance of LSA and CA isempirically compared. Moreover, it is explored whether the two weightings also improve theperformance of CA. The results for four empirical datasets show that CA always performsbetter than LSA. Weighting the elements of the raw data matrix can improve CA; however,it is data dependent and the improvement is small. Adjusting the singular value weightingexponent often improves the performance of CA; however, the extent of the improvementdepends on the dataset and the number of dimensions. (PDF) Improving information retrieval through correspondence analysis instead of latent semantic analysis.

Source

Journal of intelligent information systems [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-023-00815-y]

0.009291613 = product of:
  0.027874837 = sum of:
    0.027874837 = weight(_text_:of in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027874837 = score(doc=697,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The content of master's programs accredited by the American Library Association was examined to assess the status of knowledge organization (KO) as a subject in current training. Data collected show that KO remains very visible in a majority of programs, mainly in the form of required and electives courses focusing on descriptive cataloging, classification, and metadata. Observed tendencies include, however, the recent elimination of the required KO course in several programs, the reality that one third of KO electives listed in course catalogs have not been scheduled in the past three years, and the fact that two-thirds of those teaching KO specialize in other areas of information science.

0.009196312 = product of:
  0.027588936 = sum of:
    0.027588936 = weight(_text_:of in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027588936 = score(doc=5992,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper examines the development of facet analysis as a methodology and the role it plays in building classifications and other knowledge-organization tools. The use of categorical analysis in areas other than library and information science is also considered. The suitability of the faceted approach for humanities documentation is explored through a critical description of the FATKS (Facet Analytical Theory in Managing Knowledge Structure for Humanities) project carried out at University College London. This research focused on building a conceptual model for the subject of religion together with a relational database and search-and-browse interfaces that would support some degree of automatic classification. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences between the conceptual model and the vocabulary used to populate it, and how, in the case of religion, the choice of terminology can create an apparent bias in the system.

Source

¬The Indexer: the international journal of indexing. 38(2020) no.3, S.247-270

0.009121501 = product of:
  0.027364502 = sum of:
    0.027364502 = weight(_text_:of in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027364502 = score(doc=1084,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

From documenting human rights abuses to studying online advertising, web archives are increasingly positioned as critical resources for a broad range of scholarly Internet research agendas. In this article, we reflect on the motivations and methodological challenges of investigating the world's largest web archive, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (IAWM). Using a mixed methods approach, we report on a pilot project centred around documenting the inner workings of 'Save Page Now' (SPN) - an Internet Archive tool that allows users to initiate the creation and storage of 'snapshots' of web resources. By improving our understanding of SPN and its role in shaping the IAWM, this work examines how the public tool is being used to 'save the Web' and highlights the challenges of operationalising a study of the dynamic sociotechnical processes supporting this knowledge infrastructure. Inspired by existing Science and Technology Studies (STS) approaches, the paper charts our development of methodological interventions to support an interdisciplinary investigation of SPN, including: ethnographic methods, 'experimental blackbox tactics', data tracing, modelling and documentary research. We discuss the opportunities and limitations of our methodology when interfacing with issues associated with temporality, scale and visibility, as well as critically engage with our own positionality in the research process (in terms of expertise and access). We conclude with reflections on the implications of digital STS approaches for 'knowing infrastructure', where the use of these infrastructures is unavoidably intertwined with our ability to study the situated and material arrangements of their creation.

Source

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369660337_Knowing_Infrastructure_The_Wayback_Machine_as_object_and_instrument_of_digital_research]

0.009024403 = product of:
  0.027073208 = sum of:
    0.027073208 = weight(_text_:of in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027073208 = score(doc=829,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.35238793 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Constructivism in the social sciences has known several ups and downs over the last decades. It was successful rather early in sociology but hotly contested in International Politics/Relations (IR). Oddly enough, just at the moments it made important inroads into the research agenda and became accepted by the mainstream, the enthusiasm for it waned. Many constructivists-as did mainstream scholars-moved from "grand theory" or even "meta-theory" toward "normal science," or experimented with other (eclectic) approaches, of which the turns to practices, to emotions, to new materialism, to the visual, and to the queer are some of the latest manifestations. In a way, constructivism was "successful," on the one hand, by introducing norms, norm-dynamics, and diffusion; the role of new actors in world politics; and the changing role of institutions into the debates, while losing, on the other hand, much of its critical potential. The latter survived only on the fringes-and in Europe more than in the United States. In IR, curiously, constructivism, which was rooted in various European traditions (philosophy, history, linguistics, social analysis), was originally introduced in Europe via the disciplinary discussions taking place in the United States. Yet, especially in its critical version, it has found a more conducive environment in Europe than in the United States.
In the United States, soon after its emergence, constructivism became "mainstreamed" by having its analysis of norms reduced to "variable research." In such research, positive examples of for instance the spread of norms were included, but strangely empirical evidence of counterexamples of norm "deaths" (preventive strikes, unlawful combatants, drone strikes, extrajudicial killings) were not. The elective affinity of constructivism and humanitarianism seemed to have transformed the former into the Enlightenment project of "progress." Even Kant was finally pressed into the service of "liberalism" in the U.S. discussion, and his notion of the "practical interest of reason" morphed into the political project of an "end of history." This "slant" has prevented a serious conceptual engagement with the "history" of law and (inter-)national politics and the epistemological problems that are raised thereby. This bowdlerization of constructivism is further buttressed by the fact that in the "knowledge industry" none of the "leading" U.S. departments has a constructivist on board, ensuring thereby the narrowness of conceptual and methodological choices to which the future "professionals" are exposed. This article contextualizes constructivism and its emergence within a changing world and within the evolution of the discipline. The aim is not to provide a definition or a typology of constructivism, since such efforts go against the critical dimension of constructivism. An application of this critique on constructivism itself leads to a reflection on truth, knowledge, and the need for (re-)orientation.

Source

Oxford research encyclopedia of politics

0.008875302 = product of:
  0.026625905 = sum of:
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05