Search (38 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4773,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a recent article, Birger Hjørland (2007) critiqued the author's efforts in defining and conceptualizing information as a core concept in information science (Bates, 2005, 2006). It is argued that Hjørland has seriously misrepresented and confused the actual line of argument in those articles. Specifics of that case are presented, and the reader is urged to return to the original Bates articles to understand her claims. In those articles, Bates attempted to develop a broad conception of information, as well as a number of subtypes of information, for use in the field of information science. The development of information was related to evolutionary processes, with emergence as a significant theme.

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B.: Information: Objective or subjective/situational? In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2007) no.10, S.1448-1456. - Vgl. Erwiderung: Hjoerland, B.: The controversy over the concept of information: a rejoinder to Professor Bates. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643. Vgl. auch: Bates, M.J.: Birger Hjørland's Manichean misconstruction of Marcia Bates' work. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.2038-2044.

Type

a

0.0021393995 = product of:
  0.004278799 = sum of:
    0.004278799 = product of:
      0.008557598 = sum of:
        0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008557598 = score(doc=5525,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 5525, 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=5525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The growing study in information science of the role of the body in human information practice may benefit from the concepts developed around a set of fundamental forms of information previously published by the author. In applying these concepts to the study of human information practice, we see a framework that nicely names and locates the major components of an understanding of information seeking of all types, including that related to the body. We see information in nature, what happens to information when it encounters a nervous system, and how that information is used within nervous systems to both encode and embody the experiences of life. We see information not only in direct encounters with the body but also as it is experienced through extensions of the body, used for both input and output purposes. We also see information in the body in relation to a larger framework of forms of information encompassing both internal and external (exosomatic) information. Finally, a selective review is provided of related research and theory from biology, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy, which supports and deepens our understanding of the approach taken here to information embodiment.

Footnote

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0002. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=3400,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3400, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introduction. Dramatic changes in society and in the information disciplines and professions constituted the basis for a re-conceptualization of the content of the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. Method. Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack, Editors of the forthcoming Third Edition, working with a fifty-person Editorial Advisory Board, developed the new, projected contents list for the encyclopedia, based upon principles developed in the re-conceptualization. Analysis. Drawing on Bates' "Invisible Substrate of Information Science" article, and other sources, the information disciplines are seen as consisting of the "disciplines of the cultural record" and the "information sciences." These disciplines are all concerned with the collection, organization and access to information, across the entire traditional spectrum of disciplines, such as the humanities and natural and social sciences. Results. The disciplines covered in the encyclopedia are library and information science, archival science, records management, information systems, informatics, knowledge management, museum studies, bibliography, document and genre studies, and social studies of information. A variety of cognate disciplines are briefly covered as well. Conclusions. The information disciplines are coming into their own in the 21st century. They are increasingly prominent in universities and in society generally, and, possibly with the help of the encyclopedia, may come increasingly to be seen as a set of related disciplines traversing a spectrum of their own.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 2406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=2406,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2406, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An information search tactic is a move made to further a search. In this article, 17 "idea tactics" are presented: tactics to help generate new ideas or solutions to problems in information searching. The focus of these tactics is psychological; they are intended to help improve the information specialist's thinking and creative processes in searching. The tactics are applicable to all kinds of situations - both bibliographical and reference searches, and in both manual and on-line systems. Research leads for the study of idea tactics are suggested, and experimental design problems associated with the testing of all sorts of search tactics are discussed

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=3721,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3721, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A selection of representative definitions of information is drawn from information science and related disciplines, and discussed and compared. Defining information remains such a contested project that any claim to present a unified, singular vision of the topic would be disingenuous. Seven categories of definitions are described: Communicatory or semiotic; activity-based (i.e., information as event); propositional; structural; social; multitype; and deconstructionist. The impact of Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon is discussed, as well as the widespread influence of Karl Popper's ideas. The data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) continuum is also addressed. Work of these authors is reviewed: Marcia J. Bates, Gregory Bateson, B.C. Brookes, Michael Buckland, Ian Cornelius, Ronald Day, Richard Derr, Brenda Dervin, Fred Dretske, Jason Farradane, Christopher Fox, Bernd Frohmann, Jonathan Furner, J.A. Goguen, Robert Losee, A.D. Madden, D.M. McKay, Doede Nauta, A.D. Pratt, Frederick Thompson.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=857,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 857, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Problems in determining output size are sometimes associated with the performance of online bibliographic searches for clients in academic and other libraries. These problems are examined through discussion of a fallacy in thinking that arises when searchers try to produce the "perfect thirty-item" online search. Origins of the fallacy are explored by considering sources of misunderstandings between client and searcher and by identifying differences between manual and online searching. Several types of online searches are distinguished, and search techniques that avoid the fallacy are recommended for each search type

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 6989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=6989,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 6989, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6989)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The forth report in a series of studies, based on the 2 year Getty Art History Information Project; where humanities scholars were trained in DIALOG online searching and then allowed 24 hour unlimited access to DIALOG. Complete transaction logs were taken and form the data upon which the Getty Online Searching Project is based. Data obtained from the study is used to draw conclusions about the design of humanities information resources, particularly databases and other online resources

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2407,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2407, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As part of the study of human information search strategy, the concept of the search tactic, or move made to futher a search, is introduced. 29 search tactics are named, defined, and discussed in 4 categories: monitoring, file structure, search formulation, and term. Implications of the search tactics for research in search strategy are considered. The search tactics are inteded to be practically useful in information searching. This approach to searching is designed to be general, yet nontrivial; it is applicable to both bibliographic and reference searches and in both manual and on-line systems

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2056,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2056, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is argued and demonstrated that Birger Hjoerland's critiques of Marcia Bates' articles on the nature of information and the nature of browsing misrepresent the content of these articles, and further, frame the argument as a Manichean conflict between Hjørland's enlightened "discursive" and social approach versus Bates' benighted behavioral approach. It is argued that Bates' work not only contains much of value that has been ignored by Hjørland but also contains ideas that mostly complement, rather than conflict with, those of Hjørland.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2707,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2707, 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=2707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Getty art history information program carried out a two-year project to study how humanities scholars operate as end users of online databases. Visiting scholars at the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities in Santa Monica, California, were offered the opportunity to so unlimited subsidized searching of DIALOG databases. This first report from the project analyzes the vocabulary terms twenty-two scholars used in their natural language descriptions of their information needs and in their online searches. The data were extracted from 165 natural language statements and 1.068 search terms. Vocabulary categories used by humanities scholars were found to differ markedly from those used in the sciences, a fact that imposes distinctive demands on thesaurus development and the design of online information systems. Humanities scholars searched for far more named individuals, geographical terms, chronological terms, and discipline terms than was the case in a comparative science sample. The analysis provides substantial support for the growing perception that information needs of humanities scholars are distinct from those of scholars in other fields, and that the design of information-providing systems for these scholars must take their unique qualitites into account

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2265, 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=2265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent article by McKay et al. on browsing (2019) provides a valuable addition to the empirical literature of information science on this topic, and I read the descriptions of the various browsing cases with interest. However, the authors refer to my article on browsing (Bates, 2007) in ways that do not make sense to me and which do not at all conform to what I actually said.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 2160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=2160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2160, 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=2160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discussion in the research community and among the general public regarding content indexing (especially subject indexing) and access to digital resources, especially on the Internet, has underutilized research on a variety of factors that are important in the design of such access mechanisms. Some of these factors and issues are reviewed and implications drawn for information system design in the era of electronic access. Specifically the following are discussed: Human factors: Subject searching vs. indexing, multiple terms of access, flok classification, basic level terms, and folk access; Database factors: Bradford's law, vocabulary scalability, the Resnikoff-Dolby 30:1 Rule; Domain factors: Role of domain in indexing

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this lecture, Dr. Bates summarizes the research she recently conducted in her role as a Principal Investigator for the Library of Congress Action Plan on Bibliographic Control of Web Resources. Her investigations focused on three particular topics: User access vocabulary, Links among bibliographic families, and Staging of access to resources in the interface. From each of these perspectives, she shares her recommendations on how to achieve enhanced access to and display of records for selected Web resources across multiple systems.

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3760, 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=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

6.765375E-4 = product of:
  0.001353075 = sum of:
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 4045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00270615 = score(doc=4045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 4045, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4045)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Throughout most of human history, people got the information they needed for their lives more or less automatically and unthinkingly--through people they talked with, and from their own life experiences. Today, we are inundated with information but often know little about how to find our way through the vast sea of recorded knowledge to get to what we really want and need. In the information sciences researchers have thought a great deal about information seeking, and have studied people in the grip of trying to satisfy an information need. Much has been learned about how to enable comfortable and fun information searching in human, paper, and digital environments. Professor Marcia Bates of UCLA's Department of Information Studies has collected fifteen of her major papers on information searching in theory and practice in this volume. The articles address many aspects of searching for information, including searching tactics and techniques, the "vocabulary problem" in online searching, the kinds of indexing terms to use in various contexts, the Bradford Distribution and its effects on searching in large databases, the true nature of browsing, and how to design computer interfaces for successful searching. For all the variety in types of information systems, the human being interacting with an information source is remarkably stable in psychology and behavior. These human traits and system features are explored in depth in this book. Bates' popular articles, "What is Browsing--Really?" and "The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface," are included. This is Volume II of three containing selected works by Bates. The others are titled: Information and the Information Professions (Vol. I) and Information Users and Information System Design (Vol. III)