Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.08814547 = sum of:
  0.06314855 = product of:
    0.2525942 = sum of:
      0.2525942 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2525942 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38523552 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = 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)
  0.024996921 = product of:
    0.049993843 = sum of:
      0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049993843 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    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].

0.07744224 = product of:
  0.15488449 = sum of:
    0.15488449 = sum of:
      0.11178964 = weight(_text_:i in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11178964 = score(doc=1296,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.65227187 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043094855 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = 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

0.033245962 = product of:
  0.066491924 = sum of:
    0.066491924 = sum of:
      0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035709884 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03078204 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = 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)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

0.02659677 = product of:
  0.05319354 = sum of:
    0.05319354 = sum of:
      0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02856791 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024625631 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = 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)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.024996921 = product of:
  0.049993843 = sum of:
    0.049993843 = product of:
      0.099987686 = sum of:
        0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099987686 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly

0.02176619 = product of:
  0.04353238 = sum of:
    0.04353238 = product of:
      0.08706476 = sum of:
        0.08706476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08706476 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

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

0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 5531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=5531,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 5531, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper develops a new perspective on the relation of instantiation. This new perspective is based on recent research in cognitive psychology, or, more specifically, on the theory of frames, which was defined by Lawrence Barsalou to capture the common features of contemporary models of human concepts. I show how this new perspective may be applied to coordinate two rudimentary mental operations: categorization and conceptualization.

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 4522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=4522,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 1.2019 11:22:34

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=3382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The first aim is to provide well-articulated concepts by thinking through elementary phenomena of today's world, focusing on privacy and the digital, to clarify who we are in the cyberworld - hence a phenomenology of digital whoness. The second aim is to engage critically, hermeneutically with older and current literature on privacy, including in today's emerging cyberworld. Phenomenological results include concepts of i) self-identity through interplay with the world, ii) personal privacy in contradistinction to the privacy of private property, iii) the cyberworld as an artificial, digital dimension in order to discuss iv) what freedom in the cyberworld can mean, whilst not neglecting v) intercultural aspects and vi) the EU context.

0.009981218 = product of:
  0.019962436 = sum of:
    0.019962436 = product of:
      0.03992487 = sum of:
        0.03992487 = weight(_text_:i in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03992487 = score(doc=5523,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.23295423 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What follows is an editorial that makes a case against the development of an empirical research frontier in library and information science (LIS) devoted to information and the body. My goal is to offer a sober and constructive counterbalance to this Library Trends special issue that is otherwise uncritical of its proposition. In asserting that original research into embodied information may be unproductive for our field, I draw from my personal experience and reflections as well as foundational conceptions of LIS from past and contemporary luminaries. My conclusion reminds all stakeholders in this Library Trends special issue of the many fascinating and urgent research questions that remain unanswered within the conventional boundaries of LIS.
In 2003 I was a doctoral student at the Department of Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and happily learning information behavior under Marcia Bates. I enrolled in a methodology seminar offered through the Sociology Department entitled Ethnography, Ethnomethodology, and Symbolic Interactionism, taught by the late Melvin Pollner. Our class read a book-length ethnography of one sociologist's experience as the paid caretaker of a teenage girl living with severe mental and motor impairments; the study reported the sexual way the child pressed her body against her older, male assistant during their daily routine and the inexorable sexual response of his body-two haptic forms of embodied information. The aspiring sociologists and anthropologists in the course found these microsocial physical dynamics to be riveting and discussed their meaning for two hours. The next week our enlightened professor assigned an article by Lucy Suchman about the coordinated flow of information via documents in a workplace-a brilliant paper. To my surprise, my classmates were dismissive of Suchman's study. One budding sociologist remarked, "Well, the research design is solid, but it's all about these [End Page 585] documents. I mean . who really cares?" This flippant criticism left me speechless, while everyone else in the class laughed in agreement (excepting the magnanimous Dr. Pollner).

Footnote

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0018. 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.

0.009234612 = product of:
  0.018469224 = sum of:
    0.018469224 = product of:
      0.036938448 = sum of:
        0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036938448 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

0.008927471 = product of:
  0.017854942 = sum of:
    0.017854942 = product of:
      0.035709884 = sum of:
        0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 3394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035709884 = score(doc=3394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 3394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To oversimplify, science has two fundamental ways of changing our understanding. One may be called extrovert, or about the world, and the other introvert, or about ourselves. Three scientific revolutions in the past had great impact both extrovertly and introvertly. In changing our understanding of the external world, they also modified our conception of who we are, that is, our self-understanding. The story is well known, so I shall recount it rather quickly. We used to think that we were at the centre of the universe, nicely placed there by a creator God. It was a most comfortable and reassuring position to hold. In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus published his treatise on the movements of planets around the sun. It was entitled On the Revolutions of Celestial Bodies (De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium). Copernicus probably did not mean to start a 'revolution' in our self-understanding as well. Nonetheless, his heliocentric cosmology forever displaced the earth from the centre of the universe and made us reconsider, quite literally, our own place and role in it. It caused such a profound change in our views of the universe that the word 'revolution' begun to be associated with radical scientific transformation. We have been dealing with the consequences of the Copernican revolution since its occurrence. Indeed, it is often remarked that one of the significant achievements of our space explorations has been a matter of external and comprehensive reflection on our human condition.

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 5306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=5306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 3.2019 17:32:22

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 3407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=3407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 3407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Introduction: Philosophy's Relevance in Computing and Information Science - Ruth Hagengruber and Uwe V.Riss Part I: Philosophy of Computing and Information 1 The Fourth Revolution in our Self-Understanding - Luciano Floridi -- 2 Information Transfer as a Metaphor - Jakob Krebs -- 3 With Aristotle towards a Differentiated Concept of Information? - Uwe Voigt -- 4 The Influence of Philosophy on the Understanding of Computing and Information - Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski -- Part II: Complexity and System Theory 5 The Emergence of Self-Conscious Systems: From Symbolic AI to Embodied Robotics - Klaus Mainzer -- 6 Artificial Intelligence as a New Metaphysical Project - Aziz F. Zambak Part III: Ontology 7 The Relevance of Philosophical Ontology to Information and Computer Science - Barry Smith -- 8 Ontology, its Origins and its Meaning in Information Science - Jens Kohne -- 9 Smart Questions: Steps towards an Ontology of Questions and Answers - Ludwig Jaskolla and Matthias Rugel Part IV: Knowledge Representation 10 Sophisticated Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Requires Philosophy - Selmer Bringsjord, Micah Clark and Joshua Taylor -- 11 On Frames and Theory-Elements of Structuralism Holger Andreas -- 12 Ontological Complexity and Human Culture David J. Saab and Frederico Fonseca Part V: Action Theory 13 Knowledge and Action between Abstraction and Concretion - Uwe V.Riss -- 14 Action-Directing Construction of Reality in Product Creation Using Social Software: Employing Philosophy to Solve Real-World Problems - Kai Holzweifiig and Jens Krüger -- 15 An Action-Theory-Based Treatment ofTemporal Individuals - Tillmann Pross -- 16 Four Rules for Classifying Social Entities - Ludger Jansen Part VI: Info-Computationalism 17 Info-Computationalism and Philosophical Aspects of Research in Information Sciences - Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic -- 18 Pancomputationalism: Theory or Metaphor ? - Vincent C. Mutter Part VII: Ethics 19 The Importance of the Sources of Professional Obligations - Francis C. Dane

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 3973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=3973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 3973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

I, 347 S

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=5525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.006529857 = product of:
  0.013059714 = sum of:
    0.013059714 = product of:
      0.026119428 = sum of:
        0.026119428 = weight(_text_:22 in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026119428 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  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.