Search (1205 results, page 1 of 61)

0.14093022 = product of:
  0.28186044 = sum of:
    0.068344995 = product of:
      0.20503499 = sum of:
        0.20503499 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20503499 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36481923 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = 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)
    0.008480453 = weight(_text_:a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008480453 = score(doc=862,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.20503499 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20503499 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36481923 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges- summary and question answering- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and sequential questions initially posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, overall quality, and plagiarism risks. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's true initial thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswerable.

Source

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

Type

a

0.075938895 = product of:
  0.22781667 = sum of:
    0.056954168 = product of:
      0.1708625 = sum of:
        0.1708625 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1708625 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36481923 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = 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)
    0.1708625 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1708625 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36481923 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = 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(2/6)

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.

0.067334756 = product of:
  0.20200425 = sum of:
    0.008849338 = weight(_text_:a in 188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008849338 = score(doc=188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=188)
    0.19315492 = weight(_text_:68 in 188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19315492 = score(doc=188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.8332543 = fieldWeight in 188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=188)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

RuZ - Recht und Zugang. 2 (2021) H.1, S.68-85

Type

a

0.049603306 = product of:
  0.14880991 = sum of:
    0.006320955 = weight(_text_:a in 221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006320955 = score(doc=221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=221)
    0.14248896 = product of:
      0.2849779 = sum of:
        0.2849779 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2849779 = score(doc=221,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25314224 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            1.125762 = fieldWeight in 221, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Rätsel Bewusstsein, Gedankenlesen, Gehirnschreibmaschine - was kann die Hirnforschung hier leisten? Kommt sie ohne Psychologie und Philosophie aus oder setzt sie sie umgekehrt zwingend voraus?

Source

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Warum-die-Hirnforschung-die-Psychologie-braucht-6444377.html?view=print

Type

a

0.044996932 = product of:
  0.1349908 = sum of:
    0.0053635086 = weight(_text_:a in 5735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053635086 = score(doc=5735,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5735, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5735)
    0.12962729 = weight(_text_:kritische in 5735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12962729 = score(doc=5735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2900761 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.44687337 = fieldWeight in 5735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5735)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In den vergangenen Monaten sind in Password Online eine ganze Reihe von Beiträgen erschienen, die sich mit dem Thema Informationskompetenz auseinandergesetzt haben. Sie alle hatten einen unterschiedlichen Fokus, es einte sie jedoch eine eher kritische Perspektive auf ein universelles Kompetenzset, aus dem sich "Informationskompetenz" ergibt. Spannend ist insbesondere im Kontext des aktuellen, lebhaften Diskurses zu Fake News, dass einige Autor*innen explizit soziale und emotionale Faktoren als relevante Kriterien für den Umgang mit Information betonen. (Mit diesem Text und dem sich anschließenden Beitrag von Inka Tappenbeck möchten wir auf die "wissenskulturelle Praxis" als einen weiteren Faktor genauer eingehen, der prägt, was in unterschiedlichen Kontexten als Informationskompetenz zu verstehen ist).

Type

a

0.044940095 = product of:
  0.08988019 = sum of:
    0.006320955 = weight(_text_:a in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006320955 = score(doc=180,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.014575343 = product of:
      0.029150685 = sum of:
        0.029150685 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029150685 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Purpose This investigation aims to examine the differences and similarities between activity tracking technology users from two regions (the USA and Germany) in their intended privacy-related behavior. The focus lies on data handling after hypothetical discontinuance of use, data protection and privacy policy seeking, and privacy concerns. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected through an online survey in 2019. In order to identify significant differences between participants from Germany and the USA, the chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test were applied. Findings The intensity of several privacy-related concerns was significantly different between the two groups. The majority of the participants did not inform themselves about the respective data privacy policies or terms and conditions before installing an activity tracking application. The majority of the German participants knew that they could request the deletion of all their collected data. In contrast, only 35% out of 68 participants from the US knew about this option. Research limitations/implications This study intends to raise awareness about managing the collected health and fitness data after stopping to use activity tracking technologies. Furthermore, to reduce privacy and security concerns, the involvement of the government, companies and users is necessary to handle and share data more considerably and in a sustainable way. Originality/value This study sheds light on users of activity tracking technologies from a broad perspective (here, participants from the USA and Germany). It incorporates not only concerns and the privacy paradox but (intended) user behavior, including seeking information on data protection and privacy policy and handling data after hypothetical discontinuance of use of the technology.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.044473287 = product of:
  0.13341986 = sum of:
    0.0037925735 = weight(_text_:a in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037925735 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
    0.12962729 = weight(_text_:kritische in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12962729 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2900761 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.44687337 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Type

a

0.038477 = product of:
  0.115430996 = sum of:
    0.0050567645 = weight(_text_:a in 5795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050567645 = score(doc=5795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5795)
    0.110374235 = weight(_text_:68 in 5795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110374235 = score(doc=5795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.4761453 = fieldWeight in 5795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5795)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2020, H.4, S.68-71

Type

a

0.038477 = product of:
  0.115430996 = sum of:
    0.0050567645 = weight(_text_:a in 0) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050567645 = score(doc=0,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 0, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=0)
    0.110374235 = weight(_text_:68 in 0) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110374235 = score(doc=0,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.4761453 = fieldWeight in 0, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=0)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2020, H.7, S.68-73

Type

a

0.034278296 = product of:
  0.10283489 = sum of:
    0.0062574274 = weight(_text_:a in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062574274 = score(doc=727,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
    0.09657746 = weight(_text_:68 in 727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09657746 = score(doc=727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.41662714 = fieldWeight in 727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=727)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Entity identity management and name reconciliation are intrinsic to both Linked Open Data (LOD) and traditional library authority control. Does this mean that LOD sources can facilitate authority control? This Emblematica Online case study examines the utility of five LOD sources for name reconciliation, comparing design differences regarding ontologies, linking models, and entity properties. It explores the challenges of name reconciliation in the LOD environment and provides lessons learned during a semi-automated name reconciliation process. It also briefly discusses the potential values and benefits of LOD authorities to the authority reconciliation process itself and library services in general.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.1, p.45-68

Type

a

0.034278296 = product of:
  0.10283489 = sum of:
    0.0062574274 = weight(_text_:a in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062574274 = score(doc=1175,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
    0.09657746 = weight(_text_:68 in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09657746 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.41662714 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

There is a need for highly trained special collections and rare books catalogers as found in recent job postings. Where will these catalogers learn the unique skills needed for them to succeed in their careers? This paper is an environmental survey of courses offered by the 68 Library and Information Science programs accredited by the American Library Association. It evaluates what course offerings in cataloging and special collections are available. These findings suggest LIS programs currently do not offer sufficient numbers of courses to train special collections and rare books catalogers. Additional skills, from extra languages to knowledge of DCRM(B), need to be acquired in other ways, before, during, and after traditional LIS degree work.

Type

a

0.029528994 = product of:
  0.08858698 = sum of:
    0.006320955 = weight(_text_:a in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006320955 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
    0.082266025 = product of:
      0.16453205 = sum of:
        0.16453205 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16453205 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25314224 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.6499589 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Spektrum.de - Psychologie / Hirnforschung

Type

a

0.029528994 = product of:
  0.08858698 = sum of:
    0.006320955 = weight(_text_:a in 937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006320955 = score(doc=937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=937)
    0.082266025 = product of:
      0.16453205 = sum of:
        0.16453205 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16453205 = score(doc=937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25314224 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.6499589 = fieldWeight in 937, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Psychologie / Hirnforschung

Type

a

0.028806064 = product of:
  0.17283638 = sum of:
    0.17283638 = weight(_text_:kritische in 989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17283638 = score(doc=989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2900761 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.59583116 = fieldWeight in 989, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=989)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Artikel aus Sonderausgabe 19(2021) 'Kritische Theorie'.

0.028621297 = product of:
  0.08586389 = sum of:
    0.004424669 = weight(_text_:a in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004424669 = score(doc=490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
    0.08143922 = product of:
      0.16287844 = sum of:
        0.16287844 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16287844 = score(doc=490,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25314224 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.64342654 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Field

Psychologie

Series

Spektrum.de - Psychologie/Hirnforschung

Type

a

0.024819335 = product of:
  0.074458 = sum of:
    0.0054741087 = weight(_text_:a in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054741087 = score(doc=5508,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5508, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5508)
    0.0689839 = weight(_text_:68 in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0689839 = score(doc=5508,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.29759082 = fieldWeight in 5508, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5508)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

To understand and improve their current abilities and maturity, organizations use diagnostic instruments such as maturity models and other assessment frameworks. Increasing numbers of these are being developed in digital curation. Their central role in strategic decision making raises the need to evaluate their fitness for this purpose and develop guidelines for their design and evaluation. A comprehensive review of assessment frameworks, however, found little evidence that existing assessment frameworks have been evaluated systematically, and no methods for their evaluation. This article proposes a new methodology for evaluating the design and use of assessment frameworks. It builds on prior research on maturity models and combines analytic and empirical evaluation methods to explain how the design of assessment frameworks influences their application in practice, and how the design process can effectively take this into account. We present the evaluation methodology and its application to two frameworks. The evaluation results lead to guidelines for the design process of assessment frameworks in digital curation. The methodology provides insights to the designers of the evaluated frameworks that they can consider in future revisions; methodical guidance for researchers in the field; and practical insights and words of caution to organizations keen on diagnosing their abilities.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.55-68

Type

a

0.021060854 = product of:
  0.06318256 = sum of:
    0.007995447 = weight(_text_:a in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007995447 = score(doc=5887,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
    0.055187117 = weight(_text_:68 in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055187117 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23180789 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.23807265 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.386969 = idf(docFreq=549, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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."

Content

Afterword to a special issue "Strange Circulations".

Source

Library trends. 68(2020) no.3, S. 549-556

Type

a

0.017822845 = product of:
  0.106937066 = sum of:
    0.106937066 = weight(_text_:kritische in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.106937066 = score(doc=1186,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2900761 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.36865175 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7410603 = idf(docFreq=141, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Schluss mit der Digitalisierung ohne Sinn und Verstand! Kritische Bestandsaufnahme und Wege aus der Krise. Elektronische Krankenakte, digitaler Unterricht oder einfach nur der Versuch, sich online beim Finanzamt anzumelden: Das Thema digitale Infrastruktur brennt uns unter den Nägeln - privat wie beruflich. Oft haben wir den Eindruck, dass die Digitalisierung in Deutschland lediglich eine "Elektrifizierung der Verwaltung" ist. Weshalb stockt die digitale Transformation von Behörden, Schulen und Firmen? Wie ist es um die Datensicherheit bestellt und wie gefährlich sind Cyberattacken für das öffentliche Leben? Und noch wichtiger: Wie könnten die Lösungen aussehen, die aus den vielen Herausforderungen eine Chance machen würden? - Das Buch zur digitalen Transformation: Warum tut sich Deutschland so schwer damit? - Digitalisierungsstrategie: Die richtige Balance zwischen Blockade und Gießkannenprinzip - Cybersicherheit: Wie sich kritische Infrastruktur vor Hackerangriffen schützen lässt - Digitale Verwaltung: Der Weg zum (wieder) leistungsfähigen Sozialstaat - Demokratie in Gefahr: Plattformstrategie für einen resilienten Staat - digital wie analog Herausforderung Digitalisierung: Strategien für Verwaltung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Das Autorenduo Valentina Kerst, frühere Staatssekretärin in Thüringen und heutige Digitale Strategie-Beraterin für Organisationen und Unternehmen, und Fedor Ruhose, Staatssekretär in Rheinland-Pfalz für Digitalisierungskonzepte, legt ein gut zu lesendes, hochinformatives und zukunftsweisendes Sachbuch vor. Nach einer gründlichen Analyse der Faktoren, die die Digitalisierung bremsen, wird sowohl für Bürgerinnen und Bürger als auch für die Staatsorgane aufgezeigt, was sie zu einer positiven Entwicklung beitragen können. Für Entscheidungsträger genauso gewinnbringend zu lesen wie für alle, die bei dieser gesellschaftspolitischen Debatte mitreden und die digitale Transformation mitgestalten wollen!

0.016553432 = product of:
  0.049660295 = sum of:
    0.008849338 = weight(_text_:a in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008849338 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
    0.040810958 = product of:
      0.081621915 = sum of:
        0.081621915 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081621915 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15068802 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

Type

a

0.014764497 = product of:
  0.04429349 = sum of:
    0.0031604776 = weight(_text_:a in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031604776 = score(doc=424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049617026 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043031227 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
    0.041133013 = product of:
      0.082266025 = sum of:
        0.082266025 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082266025 = score(doc=424,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25314224 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043031227 = queryNorm
            0.32497945 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2021, H.12, S.92-93 (Tobias Keil): "... Das Werk ist in drei große Abschnitte geteilt. Der erste handelt von der Psychologie als wissenschaftlicher Disziplin und attestiert ihr zunächst nicht nur mangelnde Kompaktheit, sondern auch fehlendes Selbstbewusstsein. Fundiert legt der Autor dar, was das Fach leisten kann und muss - oder eben nicht, wenn es um die Erklärung von Bewusstsein geht. Die tief gehende Auseinandersetzung dient auch dazu, den Geist in Anlehnung an Brentano auf die »implizite Anwesenheit eines Ichs« zurückzuführen. Wird das Ich hingegen als Produkt des Bewusstseins verstanden, müsste man die schwierigere Frage beantworten, woher dieses stammt. Aber wie kommt in einem sonst subjektlosen Universum Subjektivität in die Welt, und wozu ist sie gut? ..."

Type

a