Search (657 results, page 1 of 33)

0.13789032 = product of:
  0.5515613 = sum of:
    0.5515613 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5515613 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)

Content

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

0.114908606 = product of:
  0.45963442 = sum of:
    0.45963442 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.45963442 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.08043603 = product of:
  0.3217441 = sum of:
    0.3217441 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3217441 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)

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].

0.074391626 = product of:
  0.2975665 = sum of:
    0.2975665 = weight(_text_:field's in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2975665 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.583795 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we identify, compare, and contrast theoretical constructs for the fields of information searching and information retrieval to emphasize the uniqueness of and synergy between the fields. Theoretical constructs are the foundational elements that underpin a field's core theories, models, assumptions, methodologies, and evaluation metrics. We provide a framework to compare and contrast the theoretical constructs in the fields of information searching and information retrieval using intellectual perspective and theoretical orientation. The intellectual perspectives are information searching, information retrieval, and cross-cutting; and the theoretical orientations are information, people, and technology. Using this framework, we identify 17 significant constructs in these fields contrasting the differences and comparing the similarities. We discuss the impact of the interplay among these constructs for moving research forward within both fields. Although there is tension between the fields due to contradictory constructs, an examination shows a trend toward convergence. We discuss the implications for future research within the information searching and information retrieval fields.

0.06894516 = product of:
  0.27578065 = sum of:
    0.27578065 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27578065 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.06894516 = product of:
  0.27578065 = sum of:
    0.27578065 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27578065 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, 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=484)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.064425044 = product of:
  0.25770018 = sum of:
    0.25770018 = weight(_text_:field's in 2228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25770018 = score(doc=2228,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.5055813 = fieldWeight in 2228, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2228)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In Information and Intrigue Colin Burke tells the story of one man's plan to revolutionize the world's science information systems and how science itself became enmeshed with ideology and the institutions of modern liberalism. In the 1890s, the idealistic American Herbert Haviland Field established the Concilium Bibliographicum, a Switzerland-based science information service that sent millions of index cards to American and European scientists. Field's radical new idea was to index major ideas rather than books or documents. In his struggle to create and maintain his system, Field became entangled with nationalistic struggles over the control of science information, the new system of American philanthropy (powered by millionaires), the politics of an emerging American professional science, and in the efforts of another information visionary, Paul Otlet, to create a pre-digital worldwide database for all subjects. World War I shuttered the Concilium, and postwar efforts to revive it failed. Field himself died in the influenza epidemic of 1918. Burke carries the story into the next generation, however, describing the astonishingly varied career of Field's son, Noel, who became a diplomat, an information source for Soviet intelligence (as was his friend Alger Hiss), a secret World War II informant for Allen Dulles, and a prisoner of Stalin. Along the way, Burke touches on a range of topics, including the new entrepreneurial university, Soviet espionage in America, and further efforts to classify knowledge.

Content

Raising a perfectly modern HerbertAn unexpected library revolution, at an unexpected place, by an unusual young fellow -- The great men at Harvard and Herbert's information "calling" -- Challenging the British "Lion" of science information -- New information ideas in Zurich, not Brooklyn or Paris -- Starting an information revolution and business, the hard way -- Big debts, big gamble, big building, big friends, a special librarian -- Lydia's other adventurous boy, family responsibilities, to America with hat in hand, war -- From information to intrigue, Herbert, WWI, a young Allen Dulles -- Returning to a family in decline, meeting with the liberal establishment -- To the centers of science and political power, and a new information world -- More conflicts between old and new science -- Wistar and the Council's abstracts vs. Field's elegant classification, round 1 -- A Concilium without Herbert Field, Nina and the Rockefeller's great decisions -- A voyage home and the Council's vision for world science vs. the Concilium, round 2 -- The information consequences of "capitalism's disaster" and the shift to applied science information -- The 1930's ideological journey of the Fields and their liberal friends -- Intrigue begins, in Switzerland, England, and Cambridge -- New loves, a family of agents, science information in war, librarians stealing books?, Soviet espionage without cost -- Looking forward to more intrigue, the postwar stories of big science, big information, and more ideology.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=399,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore meta-models that pertain to information behaviour. It seeks to highlight the possibilities they offer to researchers wishing to develop their own and to readers more generally interested in information behaviour literature. Design/methodology/approach - Various frameworks that may be regarded as information behaviour meta-models were examined and three separate types were identified. These are discussed in turn, with particular characteristics of individual meta-models used to illustrate the types. Findings - A meta-model is considered here to be a model that has been derived from one or more existing models. Information behaviour meta-models fall into three categories: those that unify, within one framework, disparate models/theories from a number of areas; those that integrate the fundamentals of several models which share common strands; and those that recast an established model for a particular purpose. Research limitations/implications - The extent of the typology presented in the paper is bound by the limits of the authors' endeavours in uncovering relevant meta-models. Should further meta-models be traced, it is possible that other types would also come to light. Originality/value - The work will aid the reader's understanding of how theoretical frameworks in information behaviour are developed. It will help those who study the field's literature to grasp variations in the origin of the individual models they see, by demonstrating that models may be derived from others in different ways. It will also enable readers intent on constructing their own models to understand some of the courses of action open to them.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 3057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=3057,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 3057, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3057)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interests of researchers who engage with research synthesis methods (RSM) intersect with library and information science (LIS) research and practice. This intersection is described by a summary of conceptualizations of research synthesis in a diverse set of research fields and in the context of Swanson's (1986) discussion of undiscovered public knowledge. Through a selective literature review, research topics that intersect with LIS and RSM are outlined. Topics identified include open access, information retrieval, bias and research information ethics, referencing practices, citation patterns, and data science. Subsequently, bibliometrics and topic modeling are used to present a systematic overview of the visibility of RSM in LIS. This analysis indicates that RSM became visible in LIS in the 1980s. Overall, LIS research has drawn substantially from general and internal medicine, the field's own literature, and business; and is drawn on by health and medical sciences, computing, and business. Through this analytical overview, it is confirmed that research synthesis is more visible in the health and medical literature in LIS; but suggests that, LIS, as a meta-science, has the potential to make substantive contributions to a broader variety of fields in the context of topics related to research synthesis methods.

0.06199302 = product of:
  0.24797209 = sum of:
    0.24797209 = weight(_text_:field's in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24797209 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.48649582 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.

0.057454303 = product of:
  0.22981721 = sum of:
    0.22981721 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22981721 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.057454303 = product of:
  0.22981721 = sum of:
    0.22981721 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22981721 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.057454303 = product of:
  0.22981721 = sum of:
    0.22981721 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22981721 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)

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>

0.045963444 = product of:
  0.18385378 = sum of:
    0.18385378 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18385378 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.49069715 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.031367116 = product of:
  0.12546846 = sum of:
    0.12546846 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12546846 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, 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=2851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.027724875 = product of:
  0.1108995 = sum of:
    0.1108995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1108995 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.027724875 = product of:
  0.1108995 = sum of:
    0.1108995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1108995 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.027724875 = product of:
  0.1108995 = sum of:
    0.1108995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1108995 = score(doc=3975,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:06:44
22. 2.2018 12:13:53

0.027446225 = product of:
  0.1097849 = sum of:
    0.1097849 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1097849 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, 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=8365)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38