Search (80 results, page 1 of 4)

0.12789413 = product of:
  0.21315688 = sum of:
    0.1878335 = weight(_text_:section in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1878335 = score(doc=24,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.7140504 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=24,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).

0.10265571 = product of:
  0.17109284 = sum of:
    0.13281834 = weight(_text_:section in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13281834 = score(doc=594,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.5049099 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
    0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029787935 = score(doc=594,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special issue on 'Science and knowledge organization' mit längeren Überblicken zu wichtigen Begriffen der Wissensorgansiation.

0.074793786 = product of:
  0.124656305 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=5237,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=5237,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.08147841 = sum of:
      0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03420041 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047278 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.960-965

0.07376175 = product of:
  0.12293624 = sum of:
    0.07969101 = weight(_text_:section in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07969101 = score(doc=5079,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.30294594 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.030551622 = weight(_text_:information in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030551622 = score(doc=5079,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.012693611 = product of:
      0.025387222 = sum of:
        0.025387222 = weight(_text_:technology in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025387222 = score(doc=5079,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.17098896 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411

Theme

Information

0.07326134 = product of:
  0.18315336 = sum of:
    0.15336542 = weight(_text_:section in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15336542 = score(doc=1124,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.58301973 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
    0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029787935 = score(doc=1124,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.

0.067225836 = product of:
  0.16806458 = sum of:
    0.15336542 = weight(_text_:section in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15336542 = score(doc=2273,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.58301973 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
    0.014699157 = weight(_text_:information in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014699157 = score(doc=2273,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.6, S.400-425

0.056521963 = product of:
  0.14130491 = sum of:
    0.13281834 = weight(_text_:section in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13281834 = score(doc=1131,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.5049099 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

0.052440863 = product of:
  0.087401435 = sum of:
    0.01762278 = weight(_text_:on in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01762278 = score(doc=2748,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1607316 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.02846479 = weight(_text_:information in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02846479 = score(doc=2748,freq=90.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.32527196 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          9.486833 = tf(freq=90.0), with freq of:
            90.0 = termFreq=90.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.041313864 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=2748,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.016885 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016885 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643

Theme

Information

0.047222193 = product of:
  0.07870365 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=5074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
    0.041989185 = weight(_text_:information in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041989185 = score(doc=5074,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.4798175 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
    0.02072858 = product of:
      0.04145716 = sum of:
        0.04145716 = weight(_text_:technology in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04145716 = score(doc=5074,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article contrasts Bates' understanding of information as an observer-independent phenomenon with an understanding of information as situational, put forward by, among others, Bateson, Yovits, Spang-Hanssen, Brier, Buckland, Goguen, and Hjorland. The conflict between objective and subjective ways of understanding information corresponds to the conflict between an understanding of information as a thing or a substance versus an understanding of it as a sign. It is a fundamental distinction that involves a whole theory of knowledge, and it has roots back to different metaphors applied in Shannon's information theory. It is argued that a subject-dependent/ situation specific understanding of information is best suited to fulfill the needs in information science and that it is urgent for us to base Information Science (IS; or Library and Information Science, LIS) on this alternative theoretical frame.

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Bates, M.J.: Fundamental forms of information. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2006), no.8, S.1033-1045 und Bates, M.J.: Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for information science. In: Information research, 10(2005) no.4.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1448-1456

Theme

Information

0.04720968 = product of:
  0.078682795 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=3323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
    0.023518652 = weight(_text_:information in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023518652 = score(doc=3323,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
    0.03384963 = product of:
      0.06769926 = sum of:
        0.06769926 = weight(_text_:technology in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06769926 = score(doc=3323,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.45597056 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Content

Bezug zu: Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536.

Footnote

Erwiderung zu: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1076-1077.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1078-1080

0.039353013 = product of:
  0.09838253 = sum of:
    0.058977097 = weight(_text_:on in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058977097 = score(doc=4723,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.53791076 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.039405435 = weight(_text_:information in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039405435 = score(doc=4723,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.45029256 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They also have a fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of 'information', on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. Asserts that information science must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. Shows limitations in the dominant approaches to information science and proposes alternative viewpoints

Theme

Information

0.03882282 = product of:
  0.064704694 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=4774,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
    0.020787746 = weight(_text_:information in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020787746 = score(doc=4774,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
    0.017273815 = product of:
      0.03454763 = sum of:
        0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03454763 = score(doc=4774,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The study on information science (IS) by Bates (2007) is an important contribution to the literature on browsing in IS. It is explicitly based on "behavioural science." I use this article as the point of departure for demonstrating how more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in information seeking, browsing, and related phenomena. It is part of my ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be accompanied by analyses of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is mainly formulated as a discussion based on a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as support for the emerging social paradigm in this field. The article argues that human browsing should not be conceptualized primarily in biological terms and should not be understood as random exploratory processes, but rather it should be seen as a kind of orienting strategy governed by people's metatheories or "paradigms." Information professionals should know how different metatheories are distributed in the information ecology and, thus, be able to help people developing fruitful browsing strategies.

Footnote

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.594-603

0.037044186 = product of:
  0.09261046 = sum of:
    0.022771835 = weight(_text_:information in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022771835 = score(doc=4359,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.72-77

0.035140015 = product of:
  0.05856669 = sum of:
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=3461,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.02245333 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02245333 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.017273815 = product of:
      0.03454763 = sum of:
        0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03454763 = score(doc=3461,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.

Footnote

Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536

Theme

Information

0.03470046 = product of:
  0.057834096 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=1193,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
    0.018976528 = weight(_text_:information in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018976528 = score(doc=1193,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This study examines the concept of "description" and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.

Content

Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on 'Who tweets scientific publications? A large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research'. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24834. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24834.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.13, S.1532-1549

0.034579515 = product of:
  0.05763252 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=206,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
    0.020367749 = weight(_text_:information in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020367749 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.

Source

Information 12(2021) 26 S

0.033353098 = product of:
  0.055588495 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.024945294 = weight(_text_:information in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024945294 = score(doc=304,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.257-270

Theme

Information

0.0330957 = product of:
  0.055159494 = sum of:
    0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029787935 = score(doc=629,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.016885 = product of:
      0.03377 = sum of:
        0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.032661658 = product of:
  0.054436095 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
    0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013578499 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The domain-analytic approach to knowledge organization (KO) (and to the broader field of library and information science, LIS) is outlined. The article reviews the discussions and proposals on the definition of domains, and provides an example of a domain-analytic study in the field of art studies. Varieties of domain analysis as well as criticism and controversies are presented and discussed.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Selected Papers from the International UDC Seminar 2017, Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users, 14-15 September, London UK.

0.032402508 = product of:
  0.054004177 = sum of:
    0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029787935 = score(doc=4476,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=4476,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an influential interdisciplinary movement that originated in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) about 1992. EBP is of considerable interest to library and information science (LIS) because it focuses on a thorough documentation of the basis for the decision making that is established in research as well as an optimization of every link in documentation and search processes. EBP is based on the philosophical doctrine of empiricism and, therefore, it is subject to the criticism that has been raised against empiricism. The main criticism of EBP is that practitioners lose their autonomy, that the understanding of theory and of underlying mechanisms is weakened, and that the concept of evidence is too narrow in the empiricist tradition. In this article, it is suggested that we should speak of "research-based practice" rather than EBP, because this term is open to more fruitful epistemologies and provides a broader understanding of evidence. The focus on scientific argumentation in EBP is an important contribution from EBP to LIS, which is long overdue, but parts of the underlying epistemological assumptions should be replaced: EBP is too narrow, too formalist, and too mechanical an approach on which to base scientific and scholarly documentation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1301-1310