Search (131 results, page 1 of 7)

0.33066046 = product of:
  0.5786558 = sum of:
    0.057865575 = product of:
      0.17359672 = sum of:
        0.17359672 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17359672 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.17359672 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17359672 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
    0.17359672 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17359672 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
    0.17359672 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17359672 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.27555037 = product of:
  0.48221314 = sum of:
    0.048221316 = product of:
      0.14466394 = sum of:
        0.14466394 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14466394 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.14466394 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14466394 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.14466394 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14466394 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.14466394 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14466394 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)

Content

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

0.025484923 = product of:
  0.17839445 = sum of:
    0.17839445 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17839445 = score(doc=5708,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.26062825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.6844786 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.

0.02059922 = product of:
  0.14419453 = sum of:
    0.14419453 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14419453 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26062825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.55325747 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Facets are widely encountered in information and knowledge organization, but there is much disparity in the use and understanding of concepts such as "facet," "facet analysis," and "faceted classification." The paper traces the history of these ideas and how they have been employed in different contexts. What may be termed the classical school of faceted classification is given some prominence, through the ideas of Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, but other interpretations are also explored. Attention is paid not only to the idea of what facet analysis is, and what purpose it serves, but also the language utilized to describe and explain it.

0.017656473 = product of:
  0.12359531 = sum of:
    0.12359531 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12359531 = score(doc=832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26062825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.017656473 = product of:
  0.12359531 = sum of:
    0.12359531 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12359531 = score(doc=976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26062825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The terms 'semantics' and 'ontology' are increasingly appearing together with 'explanation', not only in the scientific literature, but also in organizational communication. However, all of these terms are also being significantly overloaded. In this paper, we discuss their strong relation under particular interpretations. Specifically, we discuss a notion of explanation termed ontological unpacking, which aims at explaining symbolic domain descriptions (conceptual models, knowledge graphs, logical specifications) by revealing their ontological commitment in terms of their assumed truthmakers, i.e., the entities in one's ontology that make the propositions in those descriptions true. To illustrate this idea, we employ an ontological theory of relations to explain (by revealing the hidden semantics of) a very simple symbolic model encoded in the standard modeling language UML. We also discuss the essential role played by ontology-driven conceptual models (resulting from this form of explanation processes) in properly supporting semantic interoperability tasks. Finally, we discuss the relation between ontological unpacking and other forms of explanation in philosophy and science, as well as in the area of Artificial Intelligence.

0.014713728 = product of:
  0.10299609 = sum of:
    0.10299609 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 5832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299609 = score(doc=5832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26062825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 5832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5832)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The purpose of this review paper is to outline the constructivist approach to the notion of information from two perspectives. The first perspective explores the role of 'constructed' information in the 'constructivist niche' - a common name for the appropriate viewpoints in different science fields, such as cognitive and neuroscience, psychology, cybernetics and biology of cognition. The second perspective considers library and information science (LIS) papers in which information is treated as a constructed entity. This paper assumed the origin of the notion of information to be a construction as defined in the 'constructivist niche' that is based upon communication theory and cybernetics. Conversely, the origin of the notion of information as a construction as per LIS can be found in Bateson's definition of information as a 'difference which makes the difference,' as well as in the 1970s LIS definition wherein information is associated with the direction of a cognitive viewpoint, as in a 'cognitive turn'. The study showed that 'information as a construction', except in a few cases, did not play a significant role in the constructivist theories nor in LIS. LIS researchers reduce the concept of information to a subjective, socially-constructed entity which inherently results in different interpretations.

0.014371553 = product of:
  0.10060087 = sum of:
    0.10060087 = sum of:
      0.0660475 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0660475 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.034553368 = weight(_text_:22 in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034553368 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12758285 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 172, 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=172)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Der Beitrag blickt zurück auf den Online-Workshop "Geschlechtergerechte Sacherschließung", bei dem im Mai 2022 unterschiedliche Perspektiven der Geschlechtergerechtigkeit in der inhaltlichen Erschließung diskutiert wurden. Neben sprach- und bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Grundsatzfragen wurde die Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND) samt Regelwerken zur Gestaltung und Anwendung unter die geschlechtsspezifische Lupe genommen, ebenso wie feministische Fachvokabulare sowie Gender-Aspekte in der bibliothekarischen Aus- und Weiterbildung. Die Veranstaltung verstand sich als Auftakt, der Bericht beinhaltet einen Aufruf zu weiteren gemeinsamen Aktivitäten.

Date

15. 2.2023 14:30:22

0.012318473 = product of:
  0.08622931 = sum of:
    0.08622931 = sum of:
      0.05661214 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05661214 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.02961717 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02961717 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12758285 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In den Handlungsempfehlungen der Koordinierungsstelle für die Erhaltung des schriftlichen Kulturguts (KEK) von 2015 (KEK-Handlungsempfehlungen) wird ein nationaler Standard bei der Dokumentation von Bestandserhaltung gefordert: "In den Bibliothekskatalogen sollten künftig für den verbundübergreifenden Abgleich Bestandserhaltungsmaßnahmen für die Bestände ab 1851 [.] in standardisierter Form dokumentiert und recherchierbar gemacht werden. Dies bedarf einer gemeinsamen Festlegung mit den Bibliotheksverbünden [.]." In den KEK-Handlungsempfehlungen werden auf der Basis einer im Jahr 2015 erfolgten Erhebung für Monografien fast neun Millionen Bände aus dem Zeitabschnitt 1851-1990 als Pflichtexemplare an Bundes- und Ländereinrichtungen angegeben, die akut vom Papierzerfall bedroht und als erste Stufe einer Gesamtstrategie zu entsäuern sind. Ein Ziel der KEK ist es, standardisierte und zertifizierte Verfahren zur Massenentsäuerung zu fördern. Im Metadatenformat sind zunächst fünf Verfahren der Massenentsäuerung in Form von kontrolliertem Vokabular dokumentiert: DEZ, Mg3/MBG, METE, MgO, MMMC[2]. Mit diesen Angaben, die gezielt selektiert werden können, ist mittel- und langfristig die Anwendung einzelner Verfahren der Massenentsäuerung abrufbar und statistisch auswertbar.

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.012318473 = product of:
  0.08622931 = sum of:
    0.08622931 = sum of:
      0.05661214 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05661214 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
      0.02961717 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02961717 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12758285 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

26.11.2023 18:59:22

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.011770982 = product of:
  0.08239687 = sum of:
    0.08239687 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08239687 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26062825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036433198 = queryNorm
        0.31614712 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

"I can't presume to know how other catalogers view the systems, information resources, and institutions with which they engage on a daily basis. David Paton gives us a glimpse in this issue of the affective experiences of bibliographers and catalogers of artists' books in South Africa, and it is clear that the emotional range among them is wide. What I can say is that catalogers' feelings and worldviews, whatever they may be, give the library its shape. I think we can agree that the librarians who constructed the Library of Congress Classification around 1900, Melvil Dewey, and the many classifiers around the world past and present, have had particular sets of desires around control and access and order. We all are asked to submit to those desires in our library work, as well as our own pursuit of knowledge and pleasure reading. And every decision regarding the aboutness of a book, or about where to place it within a particular discipline, takes place in a cataloger's affective and experiential world. While the classification provides the outlines, the catalogers color in the spaces with the books, based on their own readings of the book descriptions and their interpretations of the classification scheme. The decisions they make and the structures to which they are bound affect the circulation of books and their readers across the library. Indeed, some of the encounters will be unexpected, strange, frustrating, frightening, shame-inducing, awe-inspiring, and/or delightful. The emotional experiences of students described in Mabee and Fancher's article, as well as those of any visitor to the library, are all affected by classificatory design. One concern is that a library's ordering principles may reinforce or heighten already existing feelings of precarity or marginality. Because the classifications are hidden from patrons' view, it is difficult to measure the way the order affects a person's mind and body. That a person does not consciously register the associations does not mean that they are not affected."

0.010265394 = product of:
  0.07185776 = sum of:
    0.07185776 = sum of:
      0.047176782 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047176782 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 374, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=374)
      0.024680976 = weight(_text_:22 in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024680976 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12758285 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036433198 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 374, 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=374)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Beschäftigt man sich mit Inhaltserschließung, so sind zunächst zwei Dimensionen zu unterscheiden - die Wissensorganisationssysteme selbst (z. B. Normdateien, Thesauri, Schlagwortsprachen, Klassifikationen und Ontologien) und die Metadaten für Dokumente, die mit diesen Wissensorganisationssystemen erschlossen sind. Beides steht in einer Wechselwirkung zueinander: Die Wissensorganisationssysteme sind die Werkzeuge für die Erschließungsarbeit und bilden die Grundlage für die Erstellung konkreter Erschließungsmetadaten. Die praktische Anwendung der Wissensorganisationssysteme in der Erschließung wiederum ist die Basis für deren Pflege und Weiterentwicklung. Zugleich haben Wissensorganisationssysteme auch einen Eigenwert unabhängig von den Erschließungsmetadaten für einzelne Dokumente, indem sie bestimmte Bereiche von Welt- oder Fachwissen modellartig abbilden. Will man nun Aussagen über die Qualität von inhaltlicher Erschließung treffen, so genügt es nicht, den Input - also die Wissensorganisationssysteme und die damit generierten Metadaten - zu betrachten. Man muss auch den Output betrachten, also das, was die Recherchewerkzeuge daraus machen und was folglich bei den Nutzer:innen konkret ankommt. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden Überlegungen zur Qualität von Recherchewerkzeugen in diesem Bereich angestellt - gewissermaßen als Fortsetzung und Vertiefung der dazu im Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) gegebenen Hinweise. Im Zentrum steht die verbale Erschließung nach den Regeln für die Schlagwortkatalogisierung (RSWK), wie sie sich in Bibliothekskatalogen manifestiert - gleich, ob es sich dabei um herkömmliche Kataloge oder um Resource-Discovery-Systeme (RDS) handelt.

Date

24. 9.2021 12:22:02

0.00688876 = product of:
  0.048221316 = sum of:
    0.048221316 = product of:
      0.14466394 = sum of:
        0.14466394 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14466394 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30888104 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.0053916327 = product of:
  0.037741426 = sum of:
    0.037741426 = product of:
      0.07548285 = sum of:
        0.07548285 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07548285 = score(doc=363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.42793027 = fieldWeight in 363, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Im Folgenden soll der Frage nachgegangen werden, inwiefern Bibliotheken den Qualitätsanspruch an inhaltserschließende Informationen von Ressourcen durch die Formulierung und Veröffentlichung einer bibliotheksspezifischen, übergeordneten Metadaten-Richtlinie bzw. -Policy - auch im Sinne einer Transparenzoffensive - und deren Anwendung beeinflussen können.

0.0053916327 = product of:
  0.037741426 = sum of:
    0.037741426 = product of:
      0.07548285 = sum of:
        0.07548285 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07548285 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.42793027 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die Bibliometrie ist eine sozialwissenschaftliche Disziplin, die historisch gesehen auf drei Entwicklungen fußt: die positivistisch-funktionalistische Philosophie, soziale Fakten objektiv untersuchen zu können; die Entwicklung von Zitationsindizes und -analyse, um Forschungsleistung zu messen; und die Entdeckung mathematischer Gesetzmäßigkeiten, die die Anwendung von Indikatoren in der Wissenschaftsevaluation ermöglichten.

0.0049361954 = product of:
  0.034553368 = sum of:
    0.034553368 = product of:
      0.069106735 = sum of:
        0.069106735 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069106735 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12758285 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, 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=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.0047655753 = product of:
  0.033359025 = sum of:
    0.033359025 = product of:
      0.06671805 = sum of:
        0.06671805 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06671805 = score(doc=1215,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.3782405 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die Digitalisierung und insbesondere die Entwicklung der (generativen) Künstlichen Intelligenz (KI) schreiten in einem rasanten Tempo voran. Laufend werden neue Möglichkeiten erschlossen und Horizonte eröffnet. Gesellschaft, Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Politik können mit dieser enormen Geschwindigkeit kaum mithalten. An den Hochschulen stellen die neuen Möglichkeiten generativer KI bisherige Lehr-, Lern- und Prüfungsformate in Frage. Zugleich stehen die Hochschulen vor der Herausforderung, die Studierenden auf eine Arbeitswelt vorzubereiten, in der generative KI-Werkzeuge allgegenwärtig sein werden. Als Partner der lokalen Industrie sind die Hochschulen als Ratgeber und Unterstützer bei der Entwicklung und Anwendung von KI-Systemen gefragt. Den Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften kommt in diesem Gefüge eine besondere Rolle und Verantwortung zu. Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft erwarten von den Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften, dass sie fundiertes und realistisches Wissen über die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Künstlicher Intelligenz bereitstellen und Nutzungskompetenz vermitteln. Die Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften werden als Multiplikatoren wahrgenommen und adressiert, Anwendungsmöglichkeiten zu erschließen und Arbeitskräfte auszubilden, die die notwendigen Kompetenzen für eine erfolgreiche Anwendung Künstlicher Intelligenz in die Berufspraxis einbringen.

0.0047176788 = product of:
  0.03302375 = sum of:
    0.03302375 = product of:
      0.0660475 = sum of:
        0.0660475 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 1828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0660475 = score(doc=1828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 1828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In den letzten Jahren ist eine Debatte immer stärker in der Öffentlichkeit ausgetragen worden: Wie mit rassistischen Inhalten umgehen? Auch in Bibliotheken, Archiven und Museen muss die Frage gestellt werden, welche Methoden Anwendung finden sollen, um diskriminierende Inhalte nicht weiter zu reproduzieren. Der Beitrag untersucht Methoden im Umgang mit rassifizierendem und diskriminierendem Vokabular sowie den technischen Herausforderungen. Bei dem Versuch praxisorientierte Lösungsansätze zu verhandeln, werden die Bedürfnisse von kuratorischer Verantwortung, Einbeziehung, Nutzung und Bereitstellung diskutiert und in einem Orientierungsleitfaden zusammengeführt.

0.0047176788 = product of:
  0.03302375 = sum of:
    0.03302375 = product of:
      0.0660475 = sum of:
        0.0660475 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0660475 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0047176788 = product of:
  0.03302375 = sum of:
    0.03302375 = product of:
      0.0660475 = sum of:
        0.0660475 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0660475 = score(doc=577,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17639054 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036433198 = queryNorm
            0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus