Search (143 results, page 1 of 8)

0.047506485 = product of:
  0.09501297 = sum of:
    0.09501297 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=2810,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2810, 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=2810)
      0.0882476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0882476 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

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

Type

a

0.032003243 = product of:
  0.064006485 = sum of:
    0.064006485 = product of:
      0.25602594 = sum of:
        0.25602594 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25602594 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39046928 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.03037249 = product of:
  0.06074498 = sum of:
    0.06074498 = sum of:
      0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0108246 = score(doc=300,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to organize the extensive field and to compile the complete list of information limits. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough analysis of literature from the field beginning with the 1960s up to the present has been performed. Findings - A universal typology of information limits has been proposed. A list of barriers mentioned in the literature of the subject has been compiled. Research limitations/implications - The term "information limits" is not commonly used. Originality/value - The complete list of information limits with bibliographical hints (helpful for future research) is presented.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

Type

a

0.027640268 = product of:
  0.055280536 = sum of:
    0.055280536 = sum of:
      0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011600202 = score(doc=1296,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

Type

a

0.024208048 = product of:
  0.048416097 = sum of:
    0.048416097 = sum of:
      0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 4522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047357627 = score(doc=4522,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4522, 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=4522)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=4522,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4522, 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=4522)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 1.2019 11:22:34

Footnote

Rez. unter: http://epaper.neues-deutschland.de/eweb/nd/2019/06/08/a/21/1430691/ [nd E-Paper - 08.06.2019]: Schmid, F.: »Information« ist Syntax, nicht Sinn: Quasisakrale Weltformel.

0.020948619 = product of:
  0.041897237 = sum of:
    0.041897237 = sum of:
      0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010696997 = score(doc=4463,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Type

a

0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 73, 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=73)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 73, 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=73)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

Type

a

0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=1344,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

Type

a

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=5077,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

16. 3.2019 17:32:22

Type

a

0.015505663 = product of:
  0.031011326 = sum of:
    0.031011326 = sum of:
      0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0060511357 = score(doc=2596,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose In contrast to the interest of describing and managing the social processes of knowing, information science and information and knowledge management research have put less emphasis on discussing how particular information becomes usable and how it is used in different contexts and situations. The purpose of this paper is to address this major gap, and introduce and discuss the applicability of the notion of situational appropriation of information for shedding light on this particular process in the context of daily information work practices of professionals. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the analysis of 25 qualitative interviews of archives, library and museum professionals conducted in two Nordic countries. Findings The study presents examples of how individuals appropriate different tangible and intangible assets as information on the basis of the situation in hand. Research limitations/implications The study proposes a new conceptual tool for articulating and conducting research on the process how information becomes useful in the situation in hand. Practical implications The situational appropriation of information perspective redefines the role of information management to incorporate a comprehensive awareness of the situations when information is useful and is being used. A better understanding how information becomes useful in diverse situations helps to discern the active role of contextual and situational effects and to exploit and take them into account as a part of the management of information and knowledge processes. Originality/value In contrast to orthodoxies of information science and information and knowledge management research, the notion of situational appropriation of information represents an alternative approach to the conceptualisation of information utilisation. It helps to frame particular types of instances of information use that are not necessarily addressed within the objectivistic, information seeker or learning oriented paradigms of information and knowledge management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.01482369 = product of:
  0.02964738 = sum of:
    0.02964738 = sum of:
      0.0046871896 = weight(_text_:a in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0046871896 = score(doc=3335,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Es ist wieder an der Zeit den Begriff "Information" zu aktualisieren beziehungsweise einen Bericht zum Status Quo zu liefern. Information ist der zentrale Gegenstand der Informationswissenschaft und stellt einen der wichtigsten Forschungsgegenstände der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft dar. Erstaunlicherweise findet jedoch ein stetiger Diskurs, der mit der kritischen Auseinandersetzung und der damit verbundenen Aktualisierung von Konzepten in den Geisteswissensschaften vergleichbar ist, zumindest im deutschsprachigen Raum1 nicht konstant statt. Im Sinne einer theoretischen Grundlagenforschung und zur Erarbeitung einer gemeinsamen begrifflichen Matrix wäre dies aber sicherlich wünschenswert. Bereits im letzten Jahr erschienen in dem von Søren Brier (Siehe "The foundation of LIS in information science and semiotics"2 sowie "Semiotics in Information Science. An Interview with Søren Brier on the application of semiotic theories and the epistemological problem of a transdisciplinary Information Science"3) herausgegebenen Journal "Cybernetics and Human Knowing" acht lesenswerte Stellungnahmen von namhaften Philosophen beziehungsweise Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaftlern zum Begriff der Information. Unglücklicherweise ist das Journal "Cybernetics & Human Knowing" in Deutschland schwer zugänglich, da es sich nicht um ein Open-Access-Journal handelt und lediglich von acht deutschen Bibliotheken abonniert wird.4 Aufgrund der schlechten Verfügbarkeit scheint es sinnvoll hier eine ausführliche Besprechung dieser acht Kurzartikel anzubieten.

Type

a

0.014251947 = product of:
  0.028503895 = sum of:
    0.028503895 = sum of:
      0.0020296127 = weight(_text_:a in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0020296127 = score(doc=3080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.03821847 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
      0.026474282 = weight(_text_:22 in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026474282 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16414827 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Es gibt Daten, Informationen und Fakten. Wenn man mir eine Zahlenreihe vorsetzt, dann handelt es sich um Daten: unterscheidbare Einheiten, im Fachjargon: Items. Wenn man mir sagt, dass diese Items stündliche Temperaturangaben der Aare im Berner Marzilibad bedeuten, dann verfüge ich über Information - über interpretierte Daten. Wenn man mir sagt, dies seien die gemessenen Aaretemperaturen am 22. August 2016 im Marzili, dann ist das ein Faktum: empirisch geprüfte interpretierte Daten. Dieser Dreischritt - Unterscheiden, Interpretieren, Prüfen - bildet quasi das Bindemittel des Faktischen, «the matter of fact». Wir alle führen den Dreischritt ständig aus und gelangen so zu einem relativ verlässlichen Wissen und Urteilsvermögen betreffend die Dinge des Alltags. Aber wie schon die Kurzcharakterisierung durchblicken lässt, bilden Fakten nicht den Felsengrund der Realität. Sie sind kritikanfällig, sowohl von der Interpretation wie auch von der Prüfung her gesehen. Um bei unserem Beispiel zu bleiben: Es kann durchaus sein, dass man uns zwei unterschiedliche «faktische» Temperaturverläufe der Aare am 22. August 2016 vorsetzt.

Type

a

0.00780006 = product of:
  0.01560012 = sum of:
    0.01560012 = product of:
      0.03120024 = sum of:
        0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03120024 = score(doc=5306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5306, 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=5306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 9.2018 12:57:22

0.0062400475 = product of:
  0.012480095 = sum of:
    0.012480095 = product of:
      0.02496019 = sum of:
        0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02496019 = score(doc=506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 506, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.12.2012 17:22:26

0.003930328 = product of:
  0.007860656 = sum of:
    0.007860656 = product of:
      0.015721312 = sum of:
        0.015721312 = weight(_text_:a in 5544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015721312 = score(doc=5544,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.296039 = fieldWeight in 5544, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper is a theoretical analysis of the cognitive free-fall metaphor, used within the cognitive view, as a model for explaining the communication process between a generator and a receiver of a message. Its aim is to demonstrate that the idea of a cognitive free fall taking place within this communication process leads to apparent theoretical paradoxes, partly fostered by unclear definitions of key information-science concepts-namely, tokens, signs, information, and knowledge and their interrelatedness-and a naïve theoretical framework. The paper promotes a semiotically inspired model of communication that demonstrates that what takes place in communication is not a cognitive free fall, but rather a fall from a pragmatic level of knowing or knowledge to a level of representation or information. The paper further argues that the communication process more ideally can be expressed as a complex interrelation of emotion, information, and cognition.

Type

a

0.003515392 = product of:
  0.007030784 = sum of:
    0.007030784 = product of:
      0.014061568 = sum of:
        0.014061568 = weight(_text_:a in 1316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014061568 = score(doc=1316,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 1316, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1316)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Theories of information, communication and knowledge : a multidisciplinary approach. Eds.: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan u. T.M. Dousa

Type

a

0.00324456 = product of:
  0.00648912 = sum of:
    0.00648912 = product of:
      0.01297824 = sum of:
        0.01297824 = weight(_text_:a in 4449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01297824 = score(doc=4449,freq=46.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24438578 = fieldWeight in 4449, product of:
              6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
                46.0 = termFreq=46.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a new study, computer scientists found that artificial intelligence systems fail a vision test a child could accomplish with ease. "It's a clever and important study that reminds us that 'deep learning' isn't really that deep," said Gary Marcus , a neuroscientist at New York University who was not affiliated with the work. The result takes place in the field of computer vision, where artificial intelligence systems attempt to detect and categorize objects. They might try to find all the pedestrians in a street scene, or just distinguish a bird from a bicycle (which is a notoriously difficult task). The stakes are high: As computers take over critical tasks like automated surveillance and autonomous driving, we'll want their visual processing to be at least as good as the human eyes they're replacing. It won't be easy. The new work accentuates the sophistication of human vision - and the challenge of building systems that mimic it. In the study, the researchers presented a computer vision system with a living room scene. The system processed it well. It correctly identified a chair, a person, books on a shelf. Then the researchers introduced an anomalous object into the scene - an image of elephant. The elephant's mere presence caused the system to forget itself: Suddenly it started calling a chair a couch and the elephant a chair, while turning completely blind to other objects it had previously seen. Researchers are still trying to understand exactly why computer vision systems get tripped up so easily, but they have a good guess. It has to do with an ability humans have that AI lacks: the ability to understand when a scene is confusing and thus go back for a second glance.

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=5539,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 5539, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Can information be objective and/or subjective? Based on Patrick Wilson's notion of public knowledge and a story of a sign on a tree, this paper argues that private information is not the same as subjective information, and that the very communicative process of making information makes information objective. It also argues that the objective sense of information-public knowledge-has been and will be most relevant to information science, hence questions concerning collective responsibility in collecting, preserving, and organizing information shall be considered.

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=5541,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied.

Type

a

0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 4491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=4491,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 4491, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to examine the relationships between meaning and truth as they may contribute to a constitutive definition of information. The thesis is primarily that "information" cannot be defined unless within the context of meaning and truth, and that any theory based on, or related to, information is not possible without the foundational definition. Design/methodology/approach - A review of related literatures and an arrangement of frameworks forms the design of this conceptual proposal. Findings - While other definitions of information have been presented, the present one integrates meaning and truth in ways that others do not. The thoroughgoing semantic examination provides a starting-point for a much deeper analysis of the integral role that language plays in the formation of any theory related to information. Truth tends not to be spoken of a great deal in information science; the definitional positioning of truth adds to a more complete definition and basis for theory. Originality/value - This paper proposes a new definitional and theoretical construct for information.

Type

a