Search (1046 results, page 1 of 53)

0.118891165 = product of:
  0.17833674 = sum of:
    0.12166141 = product of:
      0.24332282 = sum of:
        0.24332282 = weight(_text_:nunes in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24332282 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4112941 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.591603 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.056675326 = product of:
      0.11335065 = sum of:
        0.11335065 = weight(_text_:j.m in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11335065 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

0.095544726 = product of:
  0.14331709 = sum of:
    0.017637458 = product of:
      0.05291237 = sum of:
        0.05291237 = weight(_text_:authors in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05291237 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.12567963 = sum of:
      0.09445887 = weight(_text_:j.m in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09445887 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
      0.03122076 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03122076 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, 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=1648)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This is an edited collection of 39 original papers and as many commentaries and replies. The target papers and replies were written by senior members of the MIND Group, while all commentaries were written by junior group members. All papers and commentaries have undergone a rigorous process of anonymous peer review, during which the junior members of the MIND Group acted as reviewers. The final versions of all the target articles, commentaries and replies have undergone additional editorial review. Besides offering a cross-section of ongoing, cutting-edge research in philosophy and cognitive science, this collection is also intended to be a free electronic resource for teaching. It therefore also contains a selection of online supporting materials, pointers to video and audio files and to additional free material supplied by the 92 authors represented in this volume. We will add more multimedia material, a searchable literature database, and tools to work with the online version in the future. All contributions to this collection are strictly open access. They can be downloaded, printed, and reproduced by anyone.

Date

27. 1.2015 11:48:22

Editor

Metzinger, T. u.. J.M. Windt

0.07643578 = product of:
  0.11465367 = sum of:
    0.0141099645 = product of:
      0.042329893 = sum of:
        0.042329893 = weight(_text_:authors in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042329893 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.10054371 = sum of:
      0.0755671 = weight(_text_:j.m in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0755671 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.26919046 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
      0.024976607 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024976607 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The growing volumes of semantic data available in the web result in the need for handling the information overload phenomenon. The potential of this amount of data is enormous but in most cases it is very difficult for users to visualize, explore and use this data, especially for lay-users without experience with Semantic Web technologies. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The Visual Information-Seeking Mantra "Overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand" proposed by Shneiderman describes how data should be presented in different stages to achieve an effective exploration. The overview is the first user task when dealing with a data set. The objective is that the user is capable of getting an idea about the overall structure of the data set. Different information architecture (IA) components supporting the overview tasks have been developed, so they are automatically generated from semantic data, and evaluated with end-users. Findings - The chosen IA components are well known to web users, as they are present in most web pages: navigation bars, site maps and site indexes. The authors complement them with Treemaps, a visualization technique for displaying hierarchical data. These components have been developed following an iterative User-Centered Design methodology. Evaluations with end-users have shown that they get easily used to them despite the fact that they are generated automatically from structured data, without requiring knowledge about the underlying semantic technologies, and that the different overview components complement each other as they focus on different information search needs. Originality/value - Obtaining semantic data sets overviews cannot be easily done with the current semantic web browsers. Overviews become difficult to achieve with large heterogeneous data sets, which is typical in the Semantic Web, because traditional IA techniques do not easily scale to large data sets. There is little or no support to obtain overview information quickly and easily at the beginning of the exploration of a new data set. This can be a serious limitation when exploring a data set for the first time, especially for lay-users. The proposal is to reuse and adapt existing IA components to provide this overview to users and show that they can be generated automatically from the thesaurus and ontologies that structure semantic data while providing a comparable user experience to traditional web sites.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06935318 = product of:
  0.10402976 = sum of:
    0.07096916 = product of:
      0.14193831 = sum of:
        0.14193831 = weight(_text_:nunes in 5460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14193831 = score(doc=5460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4112941 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.34510174 = fieldWeight in 5460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033060607 = product of:
      0.06612121 = sum of:
        0.06612121 = weight(_text_:j.m in 5460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06612121 = score(doc=5460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.23554166 = fieldWeight in 5460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

0.069334395 = product of:
  0.10400159 = sum of:
    0.047326263 = product of:
      0.14197879 = sum of:
        0.14197879 = weight(_text_:authors in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14197879 = score(doc=1106,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.67576104 = fieldWeight in 1106, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1106)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.056675326 = product of:
      0.11335065 = sum of:
        0.11335065 = weight(_text_:j.m in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11335065 = score(doc=1106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 1106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

For 3 years, the authors of this article and several other colleagues have worked with 11 nonprofit community groups to help them take greater control of their information technology in terms of technology acceptance, adoption, and literacy through a research project. As part of this project, the authors explored informal learning methods that the groups could benefit from and practiced them with the community representatives who played key roles in the daily life of the organizations. In the present article, the authors reflect on the developmental trajectories observed for two individuals, each from a different nonprofit organization, with respect to information technology efficacy and ability. The authors analyze these trajectories as a sequence of the following four technology-related roles-technology consumers, technology planners, technology doers, and technology sustainers. The authors describe these roles, the methods used to promote informal learning, and implications for other researchers studying informal learning in communities.

0.058650494 = product of:
  0.17595148 = sum of:
    0.17595148 = sum of:
      0.13224243 = weight(_text_:j.m in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13224243 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.4710833 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.043709062 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043709062 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 12:53:00

0.050271854 = product of:
  0.15081556 = sum of:
    0.15081556 = sum of:
      0.11335065 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11335065 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
      0.03746491 = weight(_text_:22 in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03746491 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2639, 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=2639)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2016 12:02:26

0.050271854 = product of:
  0.15081556 = sum of:
    0.15081556 = sum of:
      0.11335065 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11335065 = score(doc=2932,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2932, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2932)
      0.03746491 = weight(_text_:22 in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03746491 = score(doc=2932,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2932, 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=2932)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 5.2016 20:05:22

0.04879891 = product of:
  0.14639673 = sum of:
    0.14639673 = product of:
      0.43919018 = sum of:
        0.43919018 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.43919018 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39072606 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

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

0.046222925 = product of:
  0.06933439 = sum of:
    0.031550843 = product of:
      0.094652526 = sum of:
        0.094652526 = weight(_text_:authors in 3944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094652526 = score(doc=3944,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 3944, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3944)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.03778355 = product of:
      0.0755671 = sum of:
        0.0755671 = weight(_text_:j.m in 3944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0755671 = score(doc=3944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.26919046 = fieldWeight in 3944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update and review the concept of warrant in Library and Information Science (LIS) and to introduce the concept of epistemic warrant from philosophy. Epistemic warrant can be used to assess the content of a work; and therefore, it can be a complement to existing warrants, such as literary warrant, in the development of controlled vocabularies. In this proposal, the authors aim to activate a theoretical discussion on warrant in order to revise and improve the validity of the concept of warrant from the user and classifier context to the classificationist context. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted an extensive literary review and close reading of the concept of warrant in LIS and knowledge organization in order to detect the different stances and gaps in which the concept of epistemic warrant might apply. The authors adopted an epistemological approach, in the vein of some of the previous commenters on warrant, such as Hope Olson and Birger Hjørland, and built upon the theoretical framework of different authors working with the concept of warrant outside knowledge organization, such as Alvin Plantinga and Alvin Goldman. Findings There are some authors and critics in the literature that have voiced for a more epistemological approach to warrant (in opposition to a predominantly ontological approach). In this sense, epistemic warrant would be an epistemological warrant and also a step forward toward pragmatism in a prominently empiricist context such as the justification of the inclusion of terms in a controlled vocabulary. Epistemic warrant can be used to complement literary warrant in the development of controlled vocabularies as well as in the classification of works. Originality/value This paper presents an exhaustive update and revision of the concept of warrant, analyzing, systematizing, and reviewing the different warrants discussed in the LIS literary warrant in a critical way. The concept of epistemic warrant for categorizational activities is introduced to the LIS field for the first time. This paper, and the proposal of epistemic warrant, has the potential to contribute to the theoretical and practical discussions on the development of controlled vocabularies and assessment of the content of works.

0.043664433 = product of:
  0.065496646 = sum of:
    0.049886264 = product of:
      0.14965878 = sum of:
        0.14965878 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14965878 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.01561038 = product of:
      0.03122076 = sum of:
        0.03122076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03122076 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.043244597 = product of:
  0.06486689 = sum of:
    0.017637458 = product of:
      0.05291237 = sum of:
        0.05291237 = weight(_text_:authors in 1368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05291237 = score(doc=1368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1368)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.047229435 = product of:
      0.09445887 = sum of:
        0.09445887 = weight(_text_:j.m in 1368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09445887 = score(doc=1368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 1368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Based on Foucault's exploration of the author-function, the current study investigates knowledge organization systems' (KOS's) treatment of persons who are also authors and the ability to record attributes, relationships and events related to those persons. FRBR and FRAD do well to extend the information in library authority records beyond the personal name as a character string to include attributes of the person, yet aspects of the person as an author and author-function can be enhanced. This paper begins with a discussion of the author-function as identified by Foucault and the complexities of identity that arise. Next, it reviews the Library and Information Science (LIS) literature on authorship and name authorities, then briefly discusses the current library content standard (Resource Description and Access, (RDA)) and the current library encoding standard, (MAchine Readable Cataloging, (MARC)). It then examines four projects making use of person data to enhance the author-function: Europeana, AustLit, The American Civil War: Letters and Diaries, and DBpedia. We conclude that additional attributes, relationships, and events are pivotal to moving toward more Foucault-friendly KOS's in libraries. Concerns with this more robust model of recoding information include the ethics of recording attributes of persons and problems of end-user searching in current systems.

0.043244597 = product of:
  0.06486689 = sum of:
    0.017637458 = product of:
      0.05291237 = sum of:
        0.05291237 = weight(_text_:authors in 2315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05291237 = score(doc=2315,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2315, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2315)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.047229435 = product of:
      0.09445887 = sum of:
        0.09445887 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09445887 = score(doc=2315,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2315, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2315)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate concepts that are used in depicting future visions of society, as afforded by technology, to map the extent of their use, examine the level of their dominance in different research areas and geographic boundaries, identify potential overlaps, analyse their longitudinal growth, and examine whether any of the identified concepts has assumed an overarching position. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 14 concepts, each of which is used to depict visions of future information infrastructures, were identified. More than 20,000 scholarly documents related to 11 of these concepts (those with 20 or more documents) are analysed by various qualitative/quantitative methods. Findings - The concepts most referred to are semantic web and ubiquitous computing (all years), and internet of things (Year 2013). Publications on some newer concepts (e.g. digital living, real world internet) are minimal. There are variations in the extent of use and preferred concepts based on geographic and disciplinary boundaries. The overlap in the use of these terms is minimal and none of these terms has assumed an overarching umbrella position. Research limitations/implications - This study is limited to scholarly publications; it would be relevant to also study the pattern of usage in governmental communications and policy documents. Social implications - By mapping multiplicity of concepts and the dispersion of discussions, the authors highlight the need for, and facilitate, a broader discussion of related social and societal implications. Originality/value - This paper is the first to present a collective of these related concepts and map the pattern of their occurrence and growth.

0.04189321 = product of:
  0.12567963 = sum of:
    0.12567963 = sum of:
      0.09445887 = weight(_text_:j.m in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09445887 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.03122076 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03122076 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046086997 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.04066576 = product of:
  0.12199728 = sum of:
    0.12199728 = product of:
      0.36599183 = sum of:
        0.36599183 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.36599183 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39072606 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.040553804 = product of:
  0.12166141 = sum of:
    0.12166141 = product of:
      0.24332282 = sum of:
        0.24332282 = weight(_text_:nunes in 3583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24332282 = score(doc=3583,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4112941 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.591603 = fieldWeight in 3583, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.924298 = idf(docFreq=15, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3583)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.039208766 = product of:
  0.058813147 = sum of:
    0.043202765 = product of:
      0.12960829 = sum of:
        0.12960829 = weight(_text_:authors in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12960829 = score(doc=823,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 823, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=823)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.01561038 = product of:
      0.03122076 = sum of:
        0.03122076 = weight(_text_:22 in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03122076 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 823, 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=823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Aiming at contributing to the epistemological characterization of the area of knowledge organization, our goal is to analyze the KO journal, since its creation in 1993, as a knowledge domain, from a nuclear community of the most productive and greater impact authors, analyzing the dialogue among citing authors and cited ones, and also the co-citations established by the citing authors. We worked with a corpus of 310 articles published between 1993 and 2011 produced by a total of 360 authors. The relatively more productive authors, a group geographically concentrated in Europe (37%), North America (44%) and Asia (19%), is clearly explained by the historical European origin of the ISKO and by an increasing North American presence along the years. Of the 33 most cited authors, 22 were co-cited in at least 6 works, which suggests that they are the theoretical referential nucleus of the area, in the studied journal. Finally, we observe that the area reveals theme cohesion and coherence in its production, enabling us to clearly visualize its theoretical referential nucleus and to confirm the role performed by the KO magazine as a catalyzing agent of international theoretical construction in the area.

0.03784994 = product of:
  0.05677491 = sum of:
    0.03492038 = product of:
      0.10476114 = sum of:
        0.10476114 = weight(_text_:authors in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10476114 = score(doc=2600,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.021854531 = product of:
      0.043709062 = sum of:
        0.043709062 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043709062 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Research libraries are using batchloading to provide access to many resources that they would otherwise be unable to catalog given the staff and other resources available. To explore how such libraries are managing their batchloading activities, the authors conducted a survey of the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group member libraries. The survey addressed staffing, budgets, scope, workflow, management, quality standards, information technology support, collaborative efforts, and assessment of batchloading activities. The authors provide an analysis of the survey results along with suggestions for process improvements and future research.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.037783552 = product of:
  0.11335065 = sum of:
    0.11335065 = product of:
      0.2267013 = sum of:
        0.2267013 = weight(_text_:j.m in 2712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2267013 = score(doc=2712,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.8075714 = fieldWeight in 2712, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2712)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.037615635 = product of:
  0.05642345 = sum of:
    0.029931758 = product of:
      0.08979527 = sum of:
        0.08979527 = weight(_text_:authors in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08979527 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.026491694 = product of:
      0.05298339 = sum of:
        0.05298339 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05298339 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046086997 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.