Search (159 results, page 1 of 8)

0.2199604 = product of:
  0.549901 = sum of:
    0.13747525 = product of:
      0.41242573 = sum of:
        0.41242573 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.41242573 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.41242573 = weight(_text_:2f in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.41242573 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.17354728 = product of:
  0.28924546 = sum of:
    0.057281353 = product of:
      0.17184405 = sum of:
        0.17184405 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17184405 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.17184405 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17184405 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.06012005 = product of:
      0.1202401 = sum of:
        0.1202401 = weight(_text_:schlagwort in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1202401 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30691838 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.3917657 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.1489715 = product of:
  0.24828582 = sum of:
    0.04582508 = product of:
      0.13747524 = sum of:
        0.13747524 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13747524 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008041379 = weight(_text_:a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008041379 = score(doc=5820,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.19441935 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19441935 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The successes of information retrieval (IR) in recent decades were built upon bag-of-words representations. Effective as it is, bag-of-words is only a shallow text understanding; there is a limited amount of information for document ranking in the word space. This dissertation goes beyond words and builds knowledge based text representations, which embed the external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases, and provide richer and structured evidence for more advanced information retrieval systems. This thesis research first builds query representations with entities associated with the query. Entities' descriptions are used by query expansion techniques that enrich the query with explanation terms. Then we present a general framework that represents a query with entities that appear in the query, are retrieved by the query, or frequently show up in the top retrieved documents. A latent space model is developed to jointly learn the connections from query to entities and the ranking of documents, modeling the external evidence from knowledge bases and internal ranking features cooperatively. To further improve the quality of relevant entities, a defining factor of our query representations, we introduce learning to rank to entity search and retrieve better entities from knowledge bases. In the document representation part, this thesis research also moves one step forward with a bag-of-entities model, in which documents are represented by their automatic entity annotations, and the ranking is performed in the entity space.
This proposal includes plans to improve the quality of relevant entities with a co-learning framework that learns from both entity labels and document labels. We also plan to develop a hybrid ranking system that combines word based and entity based representations together with their uncertainties considered. At last, we plan to enrich the text representations with connections between entities. We propose several ways to infer entity graph representations for texts, and to rank documents using their structure representations. This dissertation overcomes the limitation of word based representations with external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases. We believe this thesis research is a solid start towards the new generation of intelligent, semantic, and structured information retrieval.

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.1440819 = product of:
  0.2401365 = sum of:
    0.057281353 = product of:
      0.17184405 = sum of:
        0.17184405 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17184405 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.011011112 = weight(_text_:a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011011112 = score(doc=4997,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
    0.17184405 = weight(_text_:2f in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17184405 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

While classifications are heavily used to categorize web content, the evolution of the web foresees a more formal structure - ontology - which can serve this purpose. Ontologies are core artifacts of the Semantic Web which enable machines to use inference rules to conduct automated reasoning on data. Lightweight ontologies bridge the gap between classifications and ontologies. A lightweight ontology (LO) is an ontology representing a backbone taxonomy where the concept of the child node is more specific than the concept of the parent node. Formal lightweight ontologies can be generated from their informal ones. The key applications of formal lightweight ontologies are document classification, semantic search, and data integration. However, these applications suffer from the following problems: the disambiguation accuracy of the state of the art NLP tools used in generating formal lightweight ontologies from their informal ones; the lack of background knowledge needed for the formal lightweight ontologies; and the limitation of ontology reuse. In this dissertation, we propose a novel solution to these problems in formal lightweight ontologies; namely, faceted lightweight ontology (FLO). FLO is a lightweight ontology in which terms, present in each node label, and their concepts, are available in the background knowledge (BK), which is organized as a set of facets. A facet can be defined as a distinctive property of the groups of concepts that can help in differentiating one group from another. Background knowledge can be defined as a subset of a knowledge base, such as WordNet, and often represents a specific domain.

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.14214687 = product of:
  0.23691143 = sum of:
    0.057281353 = product of:
      0.17184405 = sum of:
        0.17184405 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17184405 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0077860313 = weight(_text_:a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077860313 = score(doc=855,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
    0.17184405 = weight(_text_:2f in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17184405 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Converting UDC numbers manually to a complex format such as the one mentioned above is an unrealistic expectation; supporting building these representations, as far as possible automatically, is a well-founded requirement. An additional advantage of this approach is that the existing records could also be processed and converted. In my dissertation I would like to prove also that it is possible to design and implement an algorithm that is able to convert pre-coordinated UDC numbers into the introduced format by identifying all their elements and revealing their whole syntactic structure as well. In my dissertation I will discuss a feasible way of building a UDC-specific XML schema for describing the most detailed and complicated UDC numbers (containing not only the common auxiliary signs and numbers, but also the different types of special auxiliaries). The schema definition is available online at: http://piros.udc-interpreter.hu#xsd. The primary goal of my research is to prove that it is possible to support building, retrieving, and analyzing UDC numbers without compromises, by taking the whole syntactic richness of the scheme by storing the UDC numbers reserving the meaning of pre-coordination. The research has also included the implementation of a software that parses UDC classmarks attended to prove that such solution can be applied automatically without any additional effort or even retrospectively on existing collections.

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>

0.13824627 = product of:
  0.23041043 = sum of:
    0.006606667 = weight(_text_:a in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006606667 = score(doc=563,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 563, 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=563)
    0.20621286 = weight(_text_:2f in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20621286 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
    0.01759089 = product of:
      0.03518178 = sum of:
        0.03518178 = weight(_text_:22 in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03518178 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In this thesis we propose three new word association measures for multi-word term extraction. We combine these association measures with LocalMaxs algorithm in our extraction model and compare the results of different multi-word term extraction methods. Our approach is language and domain independent and requires no training data. It can be applied to such tasks as text summarization, information retrieval, and document classification. We further explore the potential of using multi-word terms as an effective representation for general web-page summarization. We extract multi-word terms from human written summaries in a large collection of web-pages, and generate the summaries by aligning document words with these multi-word terms. Our system applies machine translation technology to learn the aligning process from a training set and focuses on selecting high quality multi-word terms from human written summaries to generate suitable results for web-page summarization.

Content

A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science. Vgl. Unter: http://www.inf.ufrgs.br%2F~ceramisch%2Fdownload_files%2Fpublications%2F2009%2Fp01.pdf.

Date

10. 1.2013 19:22:47

0.11645339 = product of:
  0.19408897 = sum of:
    0.04582508 = product of:
      0.13747524 = sum of:
        0.13747524 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13747524 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.010788641 = weight(_text_:a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010788641 = score(doc=701,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.13747524 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13747524 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.091650166 = product of:
  0.22912541 = sum of:
    0.057281353 = product of:
      0.17184405 = sum of:
        0.17184405 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17184405 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.17184405 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17184405 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36691502 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.038476836 = product of:
  0.19238417 = sum of:
    0.19238417 = product of:
      0.38476834 = sum of:
        0.38476834 = weight(_text_:schlagwort in 6791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38476834 = score(doc=6791,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30691838 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            1.2536503 = fieldWeight in 6791, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6791)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.024048021 = product of:
  0.1202401 = sum of:
    0.1202401 = product of:
      0.2404802 = sum of:
        0.2404802 = weight(_text_:schlagwort in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2404802 = score(doc=471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30691838 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.7835314 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Virtuelle Bibliotheken sind nicht länger ein Schlagwort, sondern nehmen in Folge des Potentials von Internet und WWW allmählich konkrete Formen an. Der Begriff virtuelle Bibliothek wird zu anderen Formen von netzwerkbasierten Informationsangeboten abgegrenzt. Vor dem Hintergrund der Schwächen traditioneller Bibliotheken und der Krise der Informationsversorgung werden die Vorteile von virtuellen Bibliotheken aufgezeigt

0.024048021 = product of:
  0.1202401 = sum of:
    0.1202401 = product of:
      0.2404802 = sum of:
        0.2404802 = weight(_text_:schlagwort in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2404802 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30691838 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.7835314 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.019978235 = product of:
  0.049945585 = sum of:
    0.008900175 = weight(_text_:a in 5309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008900175 = score(doc=5309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5309)
    0.04104541 = product of:
      0.08209082 = sum of:
        0.08209082 = weight(_text_:22 in 5309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08209082 = score(doc=5309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5309, 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=5309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:07:22

0.016144853 = product of:
  0.04036213 = sum of:
    0.0071924278 = weight(_text_:a in 4204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071924278 = score(doc=4204,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4204, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4204)
    0.0331697 = product of:
      0.0663394 = sum of:
        0.0663394 = weight(_text_:22 in 4204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0663394 = score(doc=4204,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 4204, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Description of an experimental trend-predicting exercise covering a time period as far as 50 years into the future. The Delphi technique is used in soliciting the opinions of experts in six areas: scientific breakthroughs, population growth, automation, space progress, probability and prevention of war, and future weapon systems. Possible objections to the approach are also discussed.

Date

22. 6.2018 13:24:08
22. 6.2018 13:54:52

0.014112196 = product of:
  0.03528049 = sum of:
    0.0012714536 = weight(_text_:a in 2061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0012714536 = score(doc=2061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.025478978 = fieldWeight in 2061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2061)
    0.034009036 = product of:
      0.06801807 = sum of:
        0.06801807 = weight(_text_:schlagwort in 2061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06801807 = score(doc=2061,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30691838 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.22161616 = fieldWeight in 2061, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Die vorliegende Arbeit ist einem Teilbereich der Sacherschließung gewidmet, dem erst in den letzten zehn Jahren etwas mehr Aufmerksamkeit zuteil geworden ist: der Inhaltsanalyse. Dabei handelt es sich um die Frage, wie sich Inhalte von Dokumenten' adäquat beschreiben lassen. Damit der Inhalt eines Dokuments im Anschluß an eine solche Beschreibung in einem Sachkatalog erfaßt werden kann, muß zunächst die Frage beantwortet werden, aufgrund welcher Kriterien wir entscheiden, was denn den Inhalt eines Dokuments ausmacht. Es läßt sich mit guten Gründen vermuten, daß die Antworten auf diese Frage sehr unterschiedlich ausfallen können. Anliegen dieser Arbeit ist es jedoch nicht, im Durchgang durch die bisher zu diesem Thema erschienene Literatur'- eine ganze Reihe von Antworten auf die eingangs formulierte Frage zu liefern. Derek Langridge hat mit seiner 1989 veröffentlichen Arbeit "Subject Analysis: Principles and Procedures" (dt. 1994) ein sehr grundlegendes und komplexes Konzept für die Inhaltsanalyse vorgelegt, das immer noch als einzigartig gelten kann. Durch die Beschränkung auf diesen einen, bislang differenziertesten Ansatz wird eine bessere Einsicht in die mit der Inhaltsanalyse verbundenen Probleme geboten als bei einer Behandlung sehr unterschiedlicher Modelle. Die Diskussion von Langridge's Konzeption wird deutlich machen, mit wievielen Problemen ein universaler Entwurf für die Inhaltsanalyse schon von der Sache her behaftet ist. Der erste Teil der Arbeit beschäftigt sich also mit einem theoretischen Konzept zur Inhaltsanalyse, das die begriffliche Folie für den zweiten Teil der Arbeit bildet. wo es um die Frage geht, inwieweit die "Regeln für die Schlagwortkatalogisierung" Inhaltsanalyse thematisieren und deren Forderungen auch an eine Schlagwortkata- logisierung angemessen berücksichtigen. Die ausführliche Erörterung der mit der Inhaltsanalyse zusammenhängenden theoretischen Probleme und ihrer oft philosophischen Implikationen ist deshalb notwendig, weil andernfalls die im zweiten Teil der Arbeit geäußerte Kritik an einer bestimmten Praxis deutlich an Gewicht verlöre. Daß auch der zweite Teil der Arbeit, wenn auch in anderer Form als der erste, einen theoretischen Fokus hat, hängt mit dem Umstand zusammen, daß sich die weitreichenden praktischen Auswirkungen eines Regelwerks wie den RSWK immer theoretischen Überlegungen verdanken, die in bestimmten Regeln Gestalt annehmen. Das einleitende zweite Kapitel der Arbeit beantwortet die Frage nach dem genauen Ort der Inhaltsanalyse im Kontext der Sacherschliessung und benennt allgemeine methodische Schwierigkeiten, die eine Inhaltsanalyse zu bewältigen hat. Außerdem wird hier die wachsende Bedeutung der Inhaltsanalyse angesichts der "Informationsflut'` im Internet expliziert. Das dritte Kapitel diskutiert Langridge's Modell. Nach der Ausführung von grundsätzlichen Überzeugungen Langridge's zum Auftrag von Bibliothekaren und zur Rolle der Bibliothekspraxis im Wissenschaftsbetrieb wird seine Konzeption einer Neuordnung des gesamten menschlichen Wissens im Detail vorgestellt. An die Klärung seiner Grundbegriffe schließt sich eine praktische Anleitung zur Inhaltsanalyse an. Ein kurzes Resümee bildet den Abschluß des Kapitels. Im vierten, den RSWK gewidmeten Kapitel werden zunächst in einem Exkurs Normierungsversuche der Inhaltsanalyse durch den ISO-Standard 5963 und die DIN-Norm 31623 vorgestellt, auf die die RSWK ausdrücklich Bezug nehmen. Der Diskussion des theoretischen Konzepts der Inhaltsanalyse schließen sich Erörterungen von praktischen Problemen an, die sich aus der Behandlung von inhaltsanalytisch relevanten Gesichtspunkten in den RSWK wie etwa dem .,engen Schlagwort". Weltanschauungen oder Zielgruppen von Dokumenten ergeben. Dabei werden vor allem Beispiele untersucht, die von den RSWK zur Illustration ihrer Regeln selbst angeführt werden. Das abschließende Resümee im fünften Kapitel reformuliert nocheinmal wesentliche Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Arbeit

Content

Bei der Diskussion über Zielgruppen und Weltanschauungen waren es ebenfalls inhaltliche Argumente, die Anlaß zur Kritik an deren mangelhafter Repräsentation in den Schlagwortketten lieferten. Die fehlende Verschlagwortung von Klassikern hingegen machte noch auf ein ganz anderes Problem aufmerksam: die kanonisierende Funktion von Bibliothekskatalogen. Gerade weil die Vorstellung einer Universalbibliothek längst verabschiedet ist, tragen Bibliotheken mit ihren beschränkten Beständen und deren inhaltlicher Erschließung mehr denn je zu einer Kanonisierung des Wissens bei. Daß nun gerade die Klassiker mit Hinweis auf ihre Bekanntheit aus diesem Kanon des Sachkatalogs herausgenommen werden, ist vor allem aus inhaltsanalytischer Sicht absurd. Langridge's Befund einer generell unzureichenden Berücksichtigung von inhaltsanalytischen Gesichtspunkten in gängigen angelsächsischen Klassifikationen wie auch seiner häufig konstatierten Inkompetenz von Indexierem kann ich mit Blick auf die RSWK nur zum Teil zustimmen. Das Problem des "engen Schlagworts" und die Behandlung von Klassikern sollten tatsächlich ganz neu überdacht werden, während gerade die Diskussion über Zielgruppen deutlich machte, daß etwas mehr Kulanz bei der Anwendung schon vorhandener Mittel eine erhebliche Verbesserung für das Regelwerk mit sich brächte. Auch die dritte Auflage der RSWK ist meines Erachtens noch deutlich Problemen und Anforderungen traditioneller, physisch verkörperter Kataloge verpflichtet. Die immer noch fakultativ eingeräumte Permutation von Schlagwortketten verdankt sich einem Denken, das sich in Listenkatalogen, aber gewiß nicht in einer Datenbank bewegt. Ebenso scheint das enge Schlagwort und die oft zu knappe Vergabe beispielsweise von Formschlagwörtern (vgl. die Diskussion zu "Einführung" in 4.3.2.3) zumindest zu einem Teil einer Arbeitsökonomie verpflichtet, die noch bei der aufwendigen Pflege von Zettelkatalogen Sinn machte, wo jeder zusätzliche Eintrag ein zeitraubendes Einlegen von mehr Zetteln erforderte. Angesichts der immer größeren Kapazität von Datenbanken, stellt sich die Frage, ob diese immens erweiterten technischen Möglichkeiten nicht auch Konsequenzen für die künftige intellektuelle Erschließung von Dokumenten haben werden. Inzwischen ist es kein Problem mehr, umfangreiche Eintragungen wie etwa Abstracts auch in Bibliothekskatalogen vollständig zu indexieren, wie dies professionelle Datenbankanbieter längst tun oder gar Inhaltsverzeichnisse und Resümees von Arbeiten vollständig einzuscannen. Inwieweit diese Möglichkeiten die traditionelle intellektuelle Erschließung in Form von Schlagwörtern bzw. Notationen von Klassifikationen obsolet machen oder eben nicht, darüber sollten sich die betroffenen Indexierer verständigen."

0.0114161335 = product of:
  0.028540334 = sum of:
    0.0050858143 = weight(_text_:a in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050858143 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1409)
    0.023454519 = product of:
      0.046909038 = sum of:
        0.046909038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046909038 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1409, 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=1409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Nach der Veröffentlichung einer deutschen Übersetzung der Dewey Decimal Classification 22 im Oktober 2005 und ihrer Nutzung zur Inhaltserschließung in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie seit Januar 2006 stellt sich aus Sicht der deutschen kunsthistorischen Spezialbibliotheken die Frage nach einer möglichen Verwendung der DDC und ihrer generellen Eignung zur Inhalterschließung kunsthistorischer Publikationen. Diese Frage wird vor dem Hintergrund der bestehenden bibliothekarischen Strukturen für die Kunstgeschichte sowie mit Blick auf die inhaltlichen Besonderheiten, die Forschungsmethodik und die publizistischen Traditionen dieses Faches erörtert.

0.009619209 = product of:
  0.048096042 = sum of:
    0.048096042 = product of:
      0.096192084 = sum of:
        0.096192084 = weight(_text_:schlagwort in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096192084 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30691838 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.31341258 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.0917172 = idf(docFreq=99, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Das Gebiet des Pattern-Matching besitzt in vielen wissenschaftlichen Bereichen eine hohe Relevanz. Aufgrund unterschiedlicher Einsatzgebiete sind auch Umsetzung und Anwendung des Pattern-Matching sehr verschieden. Die allen Anwendungen des Pattern-Matching inhärente Aufgabe besteht darin, in einer Vielzahl von Eingabedaten bestimmte Muster wieder zu erkennen. Dies ist auch der deutschen Bezeichnung Mustererkennung zu entnehmen. In der Medizin findet Pattern-Matching zum Beispiel bei der Untersuchung von Chromosomensträngen auf bestimmte Folgen von Chromosomen Verwendung. Auf dem Gebiet der Bildverarbeitung können mit Hilfe des Pattern-Matching ganze Bilder verglichen oder einzelne Bildpunkte betrachtet werden, die durch ein Muster identifizierbar sind. Ein weiteres Einsatzgebiet des Pattern-Matching ist das Information-Retrieval, bei dem in gespeicherten Daten nach relevanten Informationen gesucht wird. Die Relevanz der zu suchenden Daten wird auch hier anhand eines Musters, zum Beispiel einem bestimmten Schlagwort, beurteilt. Ein vergleichbares Verfahren findet auch im Internet Anwendung. Internet-Benutzer, die mittels einer Suchmaschine nach bedeutsamen Informationen suchen, erhalten diese durch den Einsatz eines Pattern-Matching-Automaten. Die in diesem Zusammenhang an den Pattern-Matching-Automaten gestellten Anforderungen variieren mit der Suchanfrage, die an eine Suchmaschine gestellt wird. Eine solche Suchanfrage kann im einfachsten Fall aus genau einem Schlüsselwort bestehen. Im komplexeren Fall enthält die Anfrage mehrere Schlüsselwörter. Dabei muss für eine erfolgreiche Suche eine Konkatenation der in der Anfrage enthaltenen Wörter erfolgen. Zu Beginn dieser Arbeit wird in Kapitel 2 eine umfassende Einführung in die Thematik des Textvergleichs gegeben, wobei die Definition einiger grundlegender Begriffe vorgenommen wird. Anschließend werden in Kapitel 3 Verfahren zum Textvergleich mit mehreren Mustern vorgestellt. Dabei wird zunächst ein einfaches Vorgehen erläutert, um einen Einsteig in das Thema des Textvergleichs mit mehreren Mustern zu erleichtern. Danach wird eine komplexe Methode des Textvergleichs vorgestellt und anhand von Beispielen verdeutlicht.

0.009563878 = product of:
  0.023909695 = sum of:
    0.0031786337 = weight(_text_:a in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031786337 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.020731062 = product of:
      0.041462123 = sum of:
        0.041462123 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041462123 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Die Arbeit geht dem Status quo der unternehmensweiten Suche in österreichischen Großunternehmen nach und beleuchtet Faktoren, die darauf Einfluss haben. Aus der Analyse des Ist-Zustands wird der Bedarf an Enterprise-Search-Software abgeleitet und es werden Rahmenbedingungen für deren erfolgreiche Einführung skizziert. Die Untersuchung stützt sich auf eine im Jahr 2009 durchgeführte Onlinebefragung von 469 österreichischen Großunternehmen (Rücklauf 22 %) und daran anschließende Leitfadeninterviews mit zwölf Teilnehmern der Onlinebefragung. Der theoretische Teil verortet die Arbeit im Kontext des Informations- und Wissensmanagements. Der Fokus liegt auf dem Ansatz der Enterprise Search, ihrer Abgrenzung gegenüber der Suche im Internet und ihrem Leistungsspektrum. Im empirischen Teil wird zunächst aufgezeigt, wie die Unternehmen ihre Informationen organisieren und welche Probleme dabei auftreten. Es folgt eine Analyse des Status quo der Informati-onssuche im Unternehmen. Abschließend werden Bekanntheit und Einsatz von Enterprise-Search-Software in der Zielgruppe untersucht sowie für die Einführung dieser Software nötige Rahmenbedingungen benannt. Defizite machen die Befragten insbesondere im Hinblick auf die übergreifende Suche im Unternehmen und die Suche nach Kompetenzträgern aus. Hier werden Lücken im Wissensmanagement offenbar. 29 % der Respondenten der Onlinebefragung geben zu-dem an, dass es in ihren Unternehmen gelegentlich bis häufig zu Fehlentscheidungen infolge defizitärer Informationslagen kommt. Enterprise-Search-Software kommt in 17 % der Unternehmen, die sich an der Onlinebefragung beteiligten, zum Einsatz. Die durch Enterprise-Search-Software bewirkten Veränderungen werden grundsätzlich posi-tiv beurteilt. Alles in allem zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass Enterprise-Search-Strategien nur Erfolg haben können, wenn man sie in umfassende Maßnahmen des Informations- und Wissensmanagements einbettet.

Date

22. 1.2016 20:40:31

Location

A

0.009381807 = product of:
  0.046909038 = sum of:
    0.046909038 = product of:
      0.093818076 = sum of:
        0.093818076 = weight(_text_:22 in 5815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093818076 = score(doc=5815,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5815, 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=5815)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

4. 8.2006 21:35:22

0.008706687 = product of:
  0.021766717 = sum of:
    0.007107642 = weight(_text_:a in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007107642 = score(doc=642,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049902063 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04327843 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
    0.014659075 = product of:
      0.02931815 = sum of:
        0.02931815 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02931815 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 642, 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=642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The past decade has seen the emergence of a new paradigm in the corporate world where organisations emphasised connectivity as a means of exposing decision-makers to wider resources of information within and outside the organisation. Many organisations followed the initiatives of enhancing infrastructures, manipulating cultural shifts and emphasising managerial commitment for creating pools and networks of knowledge. However, the concept of connectivity is not merely presenting people with the data, but more importantly, to create environments where people can seek information efficiently. This paradigm has therefore caused a shift in the function of information systems in organisations. They have to be now assessed in relation to how they underpin people's information-seeking activities within the context of their organisational environment. This research project used interpretative research methods to investigate the nature of people's information-seeking activities at two culturally contrasting organisations. Outcomes of this research project provide insights into phenomena associated with people's information-seeking function, and show how they depend on the organisational context that is defined partly by information systems. It suggests that information-seeking is not just searching for data. The inefficiencies inherent in both people and their environments can bring opaqueness into people's data, which they need to avoid or eliminate as part of seeking information. This seems to have made information-seeking a two-tier process consisting of a primary process of searching and interpreting data and auxiliary process of avoiding and eliminating opaqueness in data. Based on this view, this research suggests that organisational information systems operate naturally as implicit dual-mechanisms to underpin the above two-tier process, and that improvements to information systems should concern maintaining the balance in these dual-mechanisms.

Date

22. 7.2022 12:16:58

0.008209082 = product of:
  0.04104541 = sum of:
    0.04104541 = product of:
      0.08209082 = sum of:
        0.08209082 = weight(_text_:22 in 1496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08209082 = score(doc=1496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15155369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04327843 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1496, 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=1496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.1998 18:23:25