Search (1130 results, page 1 of 57)

0.16781816 = sum of:
  0.12022708 = product of:
    0.48090833 = sum of:
      0.48090833 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.48090833 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42784065 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04759107 = product of:
    0.09518214 = sum of:
      0.09518214 = weight(_text_:i in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09518214 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

Footnote

Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde Vorgelegt der Philosophischen Fakultät I der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

0.09789393 = sum of:
  0.07013247 = product of:
    0.2805299 = sum of:
      0.2805299 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2805299 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42784065 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027761457 = product of:
    0.055522915 = sum of:
      0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055522915 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.08861473 = product of:
  0.17722946 = sum of:
    0.17722946 = sum of:
      0.09518214 = weight(_text_:i in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09518214 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 5629, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5629)
      0.08204731 = weight(_text_:22 in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08204731 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5629, 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=5629)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2019-02-index.php.

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.2, S.163-166

0.08600698 = product of:
  0.17201395 = sum of:
    0.17201395 = sum of:
      0.12415302 = weight(_text_:i in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12415302 = score(doc=1296,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.65227187 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

0.08332519 = sum of:
  0.044064563 = product of:
    0.17625825 = sum of:
      0.17625825 = weight(_text_:author's in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17625825 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03926063 = product of:
    0.07852126 = sum of:
      0.07852126 = weight(_text_:i in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07852126 = score(doc=2264,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The h-index was devised to represent a scholar's contributions to his field with respect to the number of publications and citations. It does not, however, take into consideration the scholar's position in the authorship list. I recommend a new supplementary index to score academics, representing the relative contribution to the papers with impact, be reported alongside the h-index. I call this index the AP-index, and it is simply defined as the average position in which an academic appears in authorship lists, on articles that factor in to that academic's h-index.

0.07945338 = product of:
  0.15890676 = sum of:
    0.15890676 = sum of:
      0.11104583 = weight(_text_:i in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11104583 = score(doc=2546,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As we move toward implementing RDA: Resource Description and Access, I have been pondering how we might manage the transition to new cataloging rules effectively. I was a practicing cataloger when Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., was implemented and remember it as a traumatic process. The published literature that I found focused on the impact of the then-new rules on specific formats and genres, but no one seems to have addressed the process of implementation and what type of training worked well (or did not). After a bit of sleuthing, I found a pertinent presentation by Arlene G. Taylor, which she graciously agreed to repurpose as this guest editorial.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07813793 = sum of:
  0.05009462 = product of:
    0.20037848 = sum of:
      0.20037848 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20037848 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42784065 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028043307 = product of:
    0.056086615 = sum of:
      0.056086615 = weight(_text_:i in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056086615 = score(doc=855,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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>

0.0738456 = product of:
  0.1476912 = sum of:
    0.1476912 = sum of:
      0.07931844 = weight(_text_:i in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07931844 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
      0.06837276 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06837276 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2090, 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=2090)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.06160512 = sum of:
  0.04451193 = product of:
    0.17804772 = sum of:
      0.17804772 = weight(_text_:author's in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17804772 = score(doc=5491,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01709319 = product of:
    0.03418638 = sum of:
      0.03418638 = weight(_text_:22 in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418638 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5491, 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=5491)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDS are usually cross-disciplinary, centralised services, which are increasingly provided at a university by the academic library and in collaboration with other RDM stakeholders, such as the Research Office. At research-intensive universities, research data is generated in a wide range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This paper will discuss how providing discipline-specific RDM support is approached by such universities and academic libraries, and the advantages and disadvantages of these central and discipline-specific approaches. A descriptive case study on the author's experiences of collaborating with a central RDS at the University of Cambridge, as a subject librarian embedded in an academic department, is a major component of this paper. The case study describes how centralised RDM services offered by the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) have been adapted to meet discipline-specific needs in the Department of Chemistry. It will introduce the department and the OSC, and describe the author's role in delivering RDM training, as well as the Data Champions programme, and their membership of the RDM Project Group. It will describe the outcomes of this collaboration for the Department of Chemistry, and for the centralised service. Centralised and discipline-specific approaches to RDS provision have their own advantages and disadvantages. Supporting the discipline-specific RDM needs of researchers is proving particularly challenging for universities to address sustainably: it requires adequate financial resources and staff skilled (or re-skilled) in RDM. A mixed approach is the most desirable, cost-effective way of providing RDS, but this still has constraints.

Date

7. 9.2019 21:30:22

0.05907648 = product of:
  0.11815296 = sum of:
    0.11815296 = sum of:
      0.063454755 = weight(_text_:i in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063454755 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.05469821 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05469821 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.05907648 = product of:
  0.11815296 = sum of:
    0.11815296 = sum of:
      0.063454755 = weight(_text_:i in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063454755 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=291)
      0.05469821 = weight(_text_:22 in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05469821 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 291, 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=291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 9.2010 11:15:22

0.05907648 = product of:
  0.11815296 = sum of:
    0.11815296 = sum of:
      0.063454755 = weight(_text_:i in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063454755 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.05469821 = weight(_text_:22 in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05469821 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1430, 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=1430)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To "classify" in Library and Information Sciences (LIS) usually involves an engagement with formally established classification systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification. In this research I suggest an alternative path for LIS scholars - one that considers the application of LIS theories about classification to the investigation of everyday life "classification" processes and technologies.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.058281455 = sum of:
  0.037769627 = product of:
    0.1510785 = sum of:
      0.1510785 = weight(_text_:author's in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1510785 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020511828 = product of:
    0.041023657 = sum of:
      0.041023657 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041023657 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

0.058281455 = sum of:
  0.037769627 = product of:
    0.1510785 = sum of:
      0.1510785 = weight(_text_:author's in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1510785 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020511828 = product of:
    0.041023657 = sum of:
      0.041023657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041023657 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0541638 = product of:
  0.1083276 = sum of:
    0.1083276 = sum of:
      0.06730394 = weight(_text_:i in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06730394 = score(doc=1406,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 1406, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1406)
      0.041023657 = weight(_text_:22 in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041023657 = score(doc=1406,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1406, 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=1406)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the paper I argue that metaphors widely used in presenting knowledge organization, despite of their methodological correctness, play an ambiguous role. They are mostly conceived and used as models of information/knowledge organization such as library documents, databases and internet tools and devices. But due to their suggestive power and pervasive role, they can also obscure the structure of such organization. One can expect explanatory (descriptive) benefits from spatial (e.g. terrestrial or aquatic) metaphors comparing modes of organizing and accessing knowledge to oceans, pathways networks or even rhizomes. But mapping or metaphorically presenting cognitive undertakings such as searching, browsing or retrieving information/knowledge can obscure their actual essence. As held by the cognitive theory of metaphor (Lakoff, Johnson, Ritchie), certain aspects of complex phenomena (i.e. knowledge organization) are repeatedly obscured and hidden. I argue that metaphors containing probability concepts, although not immediately intuitive or comprehensible, are more fruitful effective in mapping knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.051691923 = product of:
  0.10338385 = sum of:
    0.10338385 = sum of:
      0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055522915 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=765)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, 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=765)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2019-05-index.php.

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404

0.051691923 = product of:
  0.10338385 = sum of:
    0.10338385 = sum of:
      0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055522915 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, 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=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:53:00

0.051691923 = product of:
  0.10338385 = sum of:
    0.10338385 = sum of:
      0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 1474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055522915 = score(doc=1474,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1474, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1474)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=1474,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1474, 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=1474)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.051691923 = product of:
  0.10338385 = sum of:
    0.10338385 = sum of:
      0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 1517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055522915 = score(doc=1517,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1517, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1517)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=1517,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1517, 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=1517)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Ockenfeld, M., I. Peters u. K. Weller

0.051691923 = product of:
  0.10338385 = sum of:
    0.10338385 = sum of:
      0.055522915 = weight(_text_:i in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055522915 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
      0.04786093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04786093 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

Series

BARC/2015/I/002