Search (868 results, page 1 of 44)

0.11507944 = product of:
  0.23015888 = sum of:
    0.23015888 = sum of:
      0.18985851 = weight(_text_:light in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18985851 = score(doc=5077,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
      0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040300373 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5077, 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=5077)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How does information lead to changes in human behavior? Why have current information theories been inadequate to shed light on this and related questions? Library and Information Science (LIS) has arrived at a crucial juncture in its relatively brief theoretical history. In addition to the cognitive and physical perspectives in our study of information, a new paradigm has been suggested; the affective paradigm. This new perspective offers keys to unlocking questions about the nature of the interaction of human and information. In recent years we have developed deeper knowledge and deeper specializations, drawing together and combining knowledge from multiple fields in order to advance our own knowledge. The relationship between information needs and information seeking has been well studied. The ways in which people use information is not as well understood because of the complex nature of human behavior. Drawing from other fields that study human behavior, however, muddies the traditional boundaries of LIS, creating some possible discomfort as we trespass into lesser known intellectual territory. Pushing our boundaries also forces questions of our self-identity as a discipline. What constitutes Library and Information Science, either in whole or in part, becomes more difficult to define and can lead to greater fragmentation. Alternatively, the incorporation of multiple perspectives may be the defining core of what constitutes LIS. The focus of this talk is to look at LIS from the outside in, from a multidisciplinary perspective, in order to shed light on questions of how information can lead to changes in human behavior. Drawing from other fields of study, the impact of information on human behavior will be explored in light of what other fields may have to offer.

Date

16. 3.2019 17:32:22

0.11486134 = sum of:
  0.08665108 = product of:
    0.25995323 = sum of:
      0.25995323 = weight(_text_:objects in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25995323 = score(doc=5455,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.82213306 = fieldWeight in 5455, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5455)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02821026 = product of:
    0.05642052 = sum of:
      0.05642052 = weight(_text_:22 in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05642052 = score(doc=5455,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5455, 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=5455)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although classification has been an important aspect of astronomy since stellar spectroscopy in the late nineteenth century, to date no comprehensive classification system has existed for all classes of objects in the universe. Here we present such a system, and lay out its foundational definitions and principles. The system consists of the "Three Kingdoms" of planets, stars and galaxies, eighteen families, and eighty-two classes of objects. Gravitation is the defining organizing principle for the families and classes, and the physical nature of the objects is the defining characteristic of the classes. The system should prove useful for both scientific and pedagogical purposes.

Date

21.11.2019 18:46:22

0.10494067 = product of:
  0.20988134 = sum of:
    0.20988134 = sum of:
      0.15346082 = weight(_text_:light in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15346082 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 1460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1460)
      0.05642052 = weight(_text_:22 in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05642052 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1460, 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=1460)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper examines whether subject headings in a bibliographic description could be used to direct users to relevant archival sources: a publication about a subject is likely to cite archival sources that are related to the subject. In the light of the data collected for the paper this approach might work in case of some keywords. However, there are also problems, like finding the optimal level the user should be directed to in the archival hierarchy, and the lack of information in archival persistent identifiers (PIDs).

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

0.10219401 = sum of:
  0.061893634 = product of:
    0.1856809 = sum of:
      0.1856809 = weight(_text_:objects in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1856809 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.040300373 = product of:
    0.080600746 = sum of:
      0.080600746 = weight(_text_:22 in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.080600746 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3277, 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=3277)
    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

0.0944859 = product of:
  0.1889718 = sum of:
    0.1889718 = product of:
      0.5669154 = sum of:
        0.5669154 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.5669154 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.5043569 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.089949146 = product of:
  0.17989829 = sum of:
    0.17989829 = sum of:
      0.13153784 = weight(_text_:light in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13153784 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 1468, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1468)
      0.048360445 = weight(_text_:22 in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048360445 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1468, 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=1468)
  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

0.08948183 = sum of:
  0.06127157 = product of:
    0.1838147 = sum of:
      0.1838147 = weight(_text_:objects in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1838147 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02821026 = product of:
    0.05642052 = sum of:
      0.05642052 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05642052 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

0.085754246 = sum of:
  0.030946817 = product of:
    0.09284045 = sum of:
      0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09284045 = score(doc=4438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 4438, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4438)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.05480743 = product of:
    0.10961486 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=4438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4438, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4438)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In both the popular press and scholarly research, digital information is persistently discussed in terms that imply its immateriality. In this characterization, the digital derives its power from its nature as a mere collection of 0s and 1s wholly independent from the particular media on which it is stored-hard drive, network wires, optical disk, etc.-and the particular signal carrier which encodes bits-variations of magnetic field, voltages, or pulses of light. This purported immateriality endows bits with considerable advantages: they are immune from the economics and logistics of analog media, and from the corruption, degradation, and decay that necessarily result from the handling of material carriers of information, resulting in a worldwide shift "from atom to bits" as captured by Negroponte. This is problematic: however immaterial it might appear, information cannot exist outside of given instantiations in material forms. But what might it mean to talk of bits as material objects? In this paper I argue that bits cannot escape the material constraints of the physical devices that manipulate, store, and exchange them. Such an analysis reveals a surprising picture of computing as a material process through and through.

0.085754246 = sum of:
  0.030946817 = product of:
    0.09284045 = sum of:
      0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 4456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09284045 = score(doc=4456,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 4456, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4456)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.05480743 = product of:
    0.10961486 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 4456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=4456,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4456, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4456)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The enormous amount of valuable information that is produced today and needs to be made available over the long-term has led to increased efforts in scalable, automated solutions for long-term digital preservation. The mission of preservation planning is to define the optimal actions to ensure future access to digital content and react to changes that require adjustments in repository operations. Considerable effort has been spent in the past on defining, implementing, and validating a framework and system for preservation planning. This article sheds light on the actual decision criteria and influence factors to be considered when choosing digital preservation actions. It is based on an extensive evaluation of case studies on preservation planning for a range of different types of objects with partners from different institutional backgrounds. We categorize decision criteria from a number of real-world decision-making instances in a taxonomy. We show that a majority of the criteria can be evaluated by applying automated measurements under realistic conditions, and demonstrate that controlled experimentation and automated measurements can be used to substantially improve repeatability of decisions and reduce the effort needed to evaluate preservation components. The presented measurement framework enables scalable preservation and monitoring and supports trust in preservation decisions because extensive evidence is produced in a reproducible, automated way and documented as the basis of decision making in a standardized form.

0.085754246 = sum of:
  0.030946817 = product of:
    0.09284045 = sum of:
      0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09284045 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.05480743 = product of:
    0.10961486 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.085754246 = sum of:
  0.030946817 = product of:
    0.09284045 = sum of:
      0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09284045 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.05480743 = product of:
    0.10961486 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the discursive formations emerging from the Social Semantic Information Spaces (SSIS) in light of the concept of emergence in the theory of integrative levels. The study aims to identify the opportunities and challenges of incorporating epistemological considerations in the act of acquiring knowledge into the consolidation of knowledge organization and mediation processes and devices in the emergence of phenomena. The goal was to analyze the effects of that concept on the actions of a sample of researchers registered in an emerging research domain in SSIS in order to understand this type of indexing done by the users and communities as a classification of integrating levels. The methodology was established by triangulation through social network analysis, consensus analysis and archaeology of knowledge. It was possible to conclude that there is a collective effort to settle a semantic interoperability model for the labeling of contents based on best practices regarding the description of the objects shared in SSIS.

0.085754246 = sum of:
  0.030946817 = product of:
    0.09284045 = sum of:
      0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 3163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09284045 = score(doc=3163,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 3163, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3163)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.05480743 = product of:
    0.10961486 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 3163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=3163,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3163, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3163)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Arts-informed, visual research was conducted to document the pictorial metaphors that appear among original drawings of information. The purpose of this paper is to report the diversity of these pictorial metaphors, delineate their formal qualities as drawings, and provide a fresh perspective on the concept of information. Design/methodology/approach The project utilized pre-existing iSquare drawings of information that were produced by iSchool graduate students during a draw-and-write activity. From a data set of 417 images, 125 of the strongest pictorial metaphors were identified and subjected to cognitive metaphor theory. Findings Overwhelmingly, the favored source domain for envisioning information was nature. The most common pictorial metaphors were: Earth, web, tree, light bulb, box, cloud, and fishing/mining, and each brings different qualities of information into focus. The drawings were often canonical versions of objects in the world, leading to arrays of pictorial metaphors marked by their similarity. Research limitations/implications Less than 30 percent of the data set qualified as pictorial metaphors, making them a minority strategy for representing information as an image. The process to identify and interpret pictorial metaphors was highly subjective. The arts-informed methodology generated tensions between artistic and social scientific paradigms. Practical implications The pictorial metaphors for information can enhance information science education and fortify professional identity among information professionals. Originality/value This is the first arts-informed, visual study of information that utilizes cognitive metaphor theory to explore the nature of information. It strengthens a sense of history, humanity, nature, and beauty in our understanding of information today, and contributes to metaphor research at large.

0.08055562 = product of:
  0.16111124 = sum of:
    0.16111124 = sum of:
      0.13290097 = weight(_text_:light in 5305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13290097 = score(doc=5305,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.38682 = fieldWeight in 5305, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5305)
      0.02821026 = weight(_text_:22 in 5305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02821026 = score(doc=5305,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5305, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5305)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Are art and science separated by an unbridgeable divide? Can they find common ground? In this new book, neuroscientist Eric R. Kandel, whose remarkable scientific career and deep interest in art give him a unique perspective, demonstrates how science can inform the way we experience a work of art and seek to understand its meaning. Kandel illustrates how reductionism?the distillation of larger scientific or aesthetic concepts into smaller, more tractable components?has been used by scientists and artists alike to pursue their respective truths. He draws on his Nobel Prize-winning work revealing the neurobiological underpinnings of learning and memory in sea slugs to shed light on the complex workings of the mental processes of higher animals. In Reductionism in Art and Brain Science, Kandel shows how this radically reductionist approach, applied to the most complex puzzle of our time?the brain?has been employed by modern artists who distill their subjective world into color, form, and light. Kandel demonstrates through bottom-up sensory and top-down cognitive functions how science can explore the complexities of human perception and help us to perceive, appreciate, and understand great works of art. At the heart of the book is an elegant elucidation of the contribution of reductionism to the evolution of modern art and its role in a monumental shift in artistic perspective. Reductionism steered the transition from figurative art to the first explorations of abstract art reflected in the works of Turner, Monet, Kandinsky, Schoenberg, and Mondrian. Kandel explains how, in the postwar era, Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, Louis, Turrell, and Flavin used a reductionist approach to arrive at their abstract expressionism and how Katz, Warhol, Close, and Sandback built upon the advances of the New York School to reimagine figurative and minimal art. Featuring captivating drawings of the brain alongside full-color reproductions of modern art masterpieces, this book draws out the common concerns of science and art and how they illuminate each other.

Content

The emergence of a reductionist school of abstract art in New York -- The Beginning of a Scientific Approach to Art -- The Biology of the Beholder's Share: Visual Perception and Bottom-Up Processing in Art -- The Biology of Learning and Memory: Top-Down Processing in Art -- A Reductionist Approach to Art. Reductionism in the Emergence of Abstract Art -- Mondrian and the Radical Reduction of the Figurative Image -- The New York School of Painters -- How the Brain Processes and Perceives Abstract Images -- From Figuration to Color Abstraction -- Color and the Brain -- A Focus on Light -- A Reductionist Influence on Figuration -- The Emerging Dialogue Between Abstract Art and Science. Why Is Reductionism Successful in Art? -- A Return to the Two Cultures

Date

14. 6.2019 12:22:37

0.07873825 = product of:
  0.1574765 = sum of:
    0.1574765 = product of:
      0.47242948 = sum of:
        0.47242948 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.47242948 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.5043569 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.076698706 = sum of:
  0.052518487 = product of:
    0.15755546 = sum of:
      0.15755546 = weight(_text_:objects in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15755546 = score(doc=2835,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024180222 = product of:
    0.048360445 = sum of:
      0.048360445 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048360445 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.07495762 = product of:
  0.14991523 = sum of:
    0.14991523 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=3509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3509)
      0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040300373 = score(doc=3509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3509, 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=3509)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In light of ongoing debates about ontological vs. epistemological approaches to knowledge organization (KO), this paper examines E. C. Richardson's treatment of ontology and epistemology in his theory of classification. According to Richardson, there is a natural order of things in the world accessible to human cognition, which may be expressed in two classificatory orders: evolutionary classification, which ranges classes of things from the most simple to the most complex, and logical classification, which ranges classes of things in the inverse order, from the most complex to the most simple. Evolutionary classification reflects ontological order and logical classification reflects epistemological order: both are faces of a single natural order. Such a view requires adherence to a representationalist, or, in Hjorland's (2008) terms, positivist understanding of epistemology, wherein human knowledge faithfully mirrors the structure of the external world. Richardson's harmonization of ontology and epistemology will find little favor among proponents of the currently fashionable pragmatist approach to KO. Nevertheless, it constitutes an early version of what Gnoli (2004) terms a naturalistic epistemology, which, once deepened and clarified, offers the best prospects for an explicit expression of both the ontological and epistemological dimensions of knowledge within a single classification of general scope.

Pages

S.15-22

0.07495762 = product of:
  0.14991523 = sum of:
    0.14991523 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
      0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040300373 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42

0.07495762 = product of:
  0.14991523 = sum of:
    0.14991523 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040300373 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considering the characteristics of hypertext systems and problems such as cognitive overload and the disorientation of users, this project studies subject hypertext documents that have undergone conceptual structuring using facets for content representation and improvement of information retrieval during navigation. The main objective was to assess the possibility of the application of topic map technology for automating the compatibilization process of these structures. For this purpose, two dissertations from the UFMG Information Science Post-Graduation Program were adopted as samples. Both dissertations had been duly analyzed and structured on the MHTX (Hypertextual Map) prototype database. The faceted structures of both dissertations, which had been represented in conceptual maps, were then converted into topic maps. It was then possible to use the merge property of the topic maps to promote the semantic interrelationship between the maps and, consequently, between the hypertextual information resources proper. The merge results were then analyzed in the light of theories dealing with the compatibilization of languages developed within the realm of information technology and librarianship from the 1960s on. The main goals accomplished were: (a) the detailed conceptualization of the merge process of the topic maps, considering the possible compatibilization levels and the applicability of this technology in the integration of faceted structures; and (b) the production of a detailed sequence of steps that may be used in the implementation of topic maps based on faceted structures.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:39:23

0.07495762 = product of:
  0.14991523 = sum of:
    0.14991523 = sum of:
      0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10961486 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040300373 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The music information retrieval (MIR) community has long understood the role of evaluation as a critical component for successful information retrieval systems. Over the past several years, it has also become evident that user-centered evaluation based on realistic tasks is essential for creating systems that are commercially marketable. Although user-oriented research has been increasing, the MIR field is still lacking in holistic, user-centered approaches to evaluating music services beyond measuring the performance of search or classification algorithms. In light of this need, we conducted a user study exploring how users evaluate their overall experience with existing popular commercial music services, asking about their interactions with the system as well as situational and personal characteristics. In this paper, we present a qualitative heuristic evaluation of commercial music services based on Jakob Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics for user interface design, and also discuss 8 additional criteria that may be used for the holistic evaluation of user experience in MIR systems. Finally, we recommend areas of future user research raised by trends and patterns that surfaced from this user study.

Date

17. 3.2016 19:22:15

0.07375164 = sum of:
  0.053601455 = product of:
    0.16080436 = sum of:
      0.16080436 = weight(_text_:objects in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16080436 = score(doc=143,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.508563 = fieldWeight in 143, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=143)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020150186 = product of:
    0.040300373 = sum of:
      0.040300373 = weight(_text_:22 in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040300373 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 143, 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=143)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Documentary activities are informational operations of selection and representation of objects made from their features and predictable use. In order to make them more dynamic, these activities are carried out systemically, according to institutionally limited (in the sense of social institution) information projects. This organic approach leads to the constitution of information systems, or, more specifically, systems of documentary information, inasmuch as they refer to actions about documents as objects from which information is produced. Thus, systems of documentary information are called documentary systems. This article aims to list and systematize elements with the potential to a generalizing and categorical approach of documentary systems. We approach the systems according to: elements of reference (the documents and their information, the users, and the institutional context); constitutive elements (collection and references); structural elements (constituent units and the relation among them); modes of production (pre or post representation of the document); management aspects (flow of documents and of their information); and, finally, typology (management systems and information retrieval systems). Thus, documentary systems can be considered products due to operations involving objects institutionally limited for the production of collections (virtual or not) and their references, whose objective is the appropriation of information by the user.

Content

Beitrag einer Section "Selected Papers from the 1ST Brazilian Conference on Knowledge Organization And Representation, Faculdade de Ciência da Informação, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro Brasília, DF Brasil, October 20-22, 2011" Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_3_h.pdf.