Search (365 results, page 1 of 19)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Information"
  1. Breitenstein, M.: Classification, culture studies, and the experience of the individual : three methods for knowledge discovery (2000) 0.07 
    0.06670598 = product of:
  0.088941306 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=95,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 95, 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=95)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=95,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=95,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Within any culture, three methods of knowledge discovery work together to situate and evolve accepted knowledge structures. Classification operates to control chaos by introducing formal rules for organizing the subject body of knowledge. The words used, and the concepts behind those words, create an ontological structure. What is not included is excluded. Culture studies have been developing ever since the early 19th century. Instrumentation has reorganized vision and practice, and has made the reality of situated knowledge more obvious. Postmodernism's questioning of Modernism's consistency and preservation of broad concepts of reality has provided a fertile ground for culture studies in all disciplines. Perhaps all social interactions, even the most primitive, are situated. The third player in knowledge discovery is the individual, who works within the culture but brings unique perception to bear on every issue. The individual is the locus of mutation and creation, which, if taken up by other individuals, eventually influences practice, and then such formalized structures as classifications and standards. All three modes of discovery are vital and essential, and participate in a multidimensional and interactive evolution
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.7
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
    Theme
    Information
  2. Jackson, R.: Information Literacy and its relationship to cognitive development and reflective judgment (2008) 0.06 
    0.057992067 = product of:
  0.115984134 = sum of:
    0.027465092 = weight(_text_:information in 111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027465092 = score(doc=111,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 111, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=111)
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=111)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This chapter maps the Association of College and Research Libraries' Information Competency Standards for Higher Education to the cognitive development levels developed by William G. Perry and Patricia King and Karen Kitchener to suggest which competencies are appropriate for which level of cognitive development.
    Series
    Special issue: Information Literacy: One key to education
    Theme
    Information
  3. Spitzer, K.L.; Eisenberg, M.B.; Lowe, C.A.: Information literacy : essential skills for the information age (2004) 0.06 
    0.056966238 = product of:
  0.113932475 = sum of:
    0.030945875 = weight(_text_:information in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030945875 = score(doc=3686,freq=104.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          10.198039 = tf(freq=104.0), with freq of:
            104.0 = termFreq=104.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.0829866 = weight(_text_:standards in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0829866 = score(doc=3686,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3693214 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.9, S.1008-1009 (D.E. Agosto): "This second edition of Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age remains true to the first edition (published in 1998). The main changes involved the updating of educational standards discussed in the text, as well as the updating of the term history. Overall, this book serves as a detailed definition of the concept of information literacy and focuses heavily an presenting and discussing related state and national educational standards and policies. It is divided into 10 chapters, many of which contain examples of U.S. and international information literacy programs in a variety of educational settings. Chapter one offers a detailed definition of information literacy, as well as tracing the deviation of the term. The term was first introduced in 1974 by Paul Zurkowski in a proposal to the national Commission an Libraries and Information Science. Fifteen years later a special ALA committee derived the now generally accepted definition: "To be information literate requires a new set of skills. These include how to locate and use information needed for problem-solving and decision-making efficiently and effectively" (American Library Association, 1989, p. 11). Definitions for a number of related concepts are also offered, including definitions for visual literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, digital literacy, and network literacy. Although the authors do define these different subtypes of information literacy, they sidestep the argument over the definition of the more general term literacy, consequently avoiding the controversy over national and world illiteracy rates. Regardless of the actual rate of U.S. literacy (which varies radically with each different definition of "literacy"), basic literacy, i.e., basic reading and writing skills, still presents a formidable educational goal in the U.S. In fact, More than 5 million high-schoolers do not read well enough to understand their textbooks or other material written for their grade level. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 26% of these students cannot read material many of us world deem essential for daily living, such as road signs, newspapers, and bus schedules. (Hock & Deshler, 2003, p. 27)
    Chapter two delves more deeply into the historical evolution of the concept of information literacy, and chapter three summarizes selected information literacy research. Researchers generally agree that information literacy is a process, rather than a set of skills to be learned (despite the unfortunate use of the word "skills" in the ALA definition). Researchers also generally agree that information literacy should be taught across the curriculum, as opposed to limiting it to the library or any other single educational context or discipline. Chapter four discusses economic ties to information literacy, suggesting that countries with information literate populations will better succeed economically in the current and future information-based world economy. A recent report issued by the Basic Education Coalition, an umbrella group of 19 private and nongovernmental development and relief organizations, supports this claim based an meta-analysis of large bodies of data collected by the World Bank, the United Nations, and other international organizations. Teach a Child, Transform a Nation (Basic Education Coalition, 2004) concluded that no modern nation has achieved sustained economic growth without providing near universal basic education for its citizens. It also concluded that countries that improve their literacy rates by 20 to 30% sec subsequent GDP increases of 8 to 16%. In light of the Coalition's finding that one fourth of adults in the world's developing countries are unable to read or write, the goal of worldwide information literacy seems sadly unattainable for the present, a present in which even universal basic literacy is still a pipedream. Chapter live discusses information literacy across the curriculum as an interpretation of national standards. The many examples of school and university information literacy programs, standards, and policies detailed throughout the volume world be very useful to educators and administrators engaging in program planning and review. For example, the authors explain that economics standards included in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act are comprised of 20 benchmark content standards. They quote a two-pronged grade 12 benchmark that first entails students being able to discuss how a high school senior's working 20 hours a week while attending school might result in a reduced overall lifetime income, and second requires students to be able to describe how increasing the federal minimum wage might result in reduced income for some workers. The authors tie this benchmark to information literacy as follows: "Economic decision making requires complex thinking skills because the variables involved are interdependent.
    Students need to use the whole range of information literacy skills to identify needed information, evaluate and analyze information, and use information for critical thinking and problem solving" (p. 81). Chapters six and seven address K-12 education and information literacy. The authors outline the restructuring necessary to make information literacy a basic part of the curriculum and emphasize resourcebased learning as crucial in teaching information literacy. The authors also discuss the implications of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act to the teaching of information literacy in primary and secondary schools. Again they avoid controversy, this time by omitting analysis of the success or failure of the Act in promoting the teaching and learning of information literacy. Instead, these chapters provide a number of examples of information literacy programs in K-12 educational settings within the US. Examples range from information literacy guidelines developed by the California Technology Assistance Project to a discussion of home schoolers and information literacy. Throughout the 1990s, the information literacy movement began to filter up to higher education. Chapter eight discusses related standards and presents a number of examples of college-level information literacy programs, including programs at the University of Massachusetts, Kent State University, and Washington State University. Chapter nine deals with technology and information literacy. It tocuses an the teaching of technology use as process teaching and an the importance of context in technology education.
    Lastly, chapter 10 considers possible future directions of the information literacy movement. The authors conclude "Our ability to be information literate depends an our willingness to be lifelong learners as we are challenged to master new, and as yet unknown, technologies that will surely alter the landscape of information in the future" (p. 177). Following the book's 10 chapters are a number of appendices that present information literacy standards and definitions, a timeline of the evolution of the information literacy movement, and a number of related bibliographies. Lead author Eisenberg is perhaps best known as the co-creator, with Bob Berkowitz, of the Big 6, an information literacy model. The model includes six components: Task Definition, Information Seeking Strategies, Location and Access, Use of Information, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Eisenberg, 2003). Throughout the book, Eisenberg and his co-authors show how the Big 6 model can be used to teach information literacy. For example, in chapter nine, "Technology and Information Literacy," they lay out each of the six model components, providing specific technological skills benchmarks for each, such as "Know the roles and computer expertise of the people working in the school library media center and elsewhere who might provide information or assistance" under step 3, "Location and Access" (p. 160). The many detailed descriptions of information literacy policies and programs that appear throughout the book make it most useful for educators, administrators, and policy makers involved in the teaching, planning, and development of information literacy programs, standards, and policies. Overall, this newly revised volume stands as one of the most comprehensive single available sources from which to begin a detailed investigation of the concept of information literacy."
    Theme
    Information
  4. Fallis, D.: Social epistemology and information science (2006) 0.05 
    0.05110796 = product of:
  0.10221592 = sum of:
    0.047570936 = weight(_text_:information in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047570936 = score(doc=4368,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
    0.054644987 = product of:
      0.109289974 = sum of:
        0.109289974 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109289974 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:22:28
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx
    Theme
    Information
  5. Andersen, J.: Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication : an inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization (2004) 0.05 
    0.047091816 = product of:
  0.09418363 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
    0.07358481 = product of:
      0.14716962 = sum of:
        0.14716962 = weight(_text_:organization in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14716962 = score(doc=2348,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.8187473 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A publication on the foundation of knowledge organization
    Theme
    Information
  6. Houston, R.D.; Harmon, E.G.: Re-envisioning the information concept : systematic definitions (2002) 0.04 
    0.04048084 = product of:
  0.08096168 = sum of:
    0.033637732 = weight(_text_:information in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033637732 = score(doc=136,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.04732395 = product of:
      0.0946479 = sum of:
        0.0946479 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0946479 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper suggests a framework and systematic definitions for 6 words commonly used in dthe field of information science: data, information, knowledge, wisdom, inspiration, and intelligence. We intend these definitions to lead to a quantification of information science, a quantification that will enable their measurement, manipulastion, and prediction.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
    22. 2.2007 19:22:13
    Source
    Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari
    Theme
    Information
  7. Ohly, H.P.: Information and organizational knowledge faced with contemporary knowledge theories : unveiling the strength of the myth (2000) 0.04 
    0.039899975 = product of:
  0.07979995 = sum of:
    0.029731836 = weight(_text_:information in 6275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029731836 = score(doc=6275,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 6275, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6275)
    0.050068118 = product of:
      0.100136235 = sum of:
        0.100136235 = weight(_text_:organization in 6275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100136235 = score(doc=6275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.55708694 = fieldWeight in 6275, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.7
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
    Theme
    Information Resources Management
    Information
  8. Bates, M.J.: Fundamental forms of information (2006) 0.04 
    0.039384767 = product of:
  0.078769535 = sum of:
    0.04495967 = weight(_text_:information in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04495967 = score(doc=2746,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5079985 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
    0.033809863 = product of:
      0.067619726 = sum of:
        0.067619726 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067619726 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Fundamental forms of information, as well as the term information itself, are defined and developed for the purposes of information science/studies. Concepts of natural and represented information (taking an unconventional sense of representation), encoded and embodied information, as well as experienced, enacted, expressed, embedded, recorded, and trace information are elaborated. The utility of these terms for the discipline is illustrated with examples from the study of information-seeking behavior and of information genres. Distinctions between the information and curatorial sciences with respect to their social (and informational) objects of study are briefly outlined.
    Content
    Vgl. Erwiderung: Hjoerland, B.: The controversy over the concept of information: a rejoinder to Professor Bates. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:15:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1033-1045
    Theme
    Information
  9. dpa: Struktur des Denkorgans wird bald entschlüsselt sein (2000) 0.04 
    0.039279293 = product of:
  0.07855859 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=3952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
    0.057959765 = product of:
      0.11591953 = sum of:
        0.11591953 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11591953 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    17. 7.1996 9:33:22
    22. 7.2000 19:05:41
    Theme
    Information
  10. ¬Die Zukunft des Wissens : Vorträge und Kolloquien: XVIII. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie, Konstanz, 4. - 8. Oktober 1999 (2000) 0.04 
    0.03896247 = product of:
  0.05194996 = sum of:
    0.0042914203 = weight(_text_:information in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042914203 = score(doc=733,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
    0.03912026 = weight(_text_:standards in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03912026 = score(doc=733,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.17409979 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
    0.00853828 = product of:
      0.01707656 = sum of:
        0.01707656 = weight(_text_:22 in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01707656 = score(doc=733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 733, 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=733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Es liegt kein Argument vor, mit dem man die faktische Affinität zwischen ökonomischer Globalisierung und Shareholder-Value-Prinzip normativ begründen könnte. Aus dem Bereich der anwendungsorientierten Ethik sind die Vorträge von Angelika Krebs (Frankfurt am Main) und Dieter Birnbacher (Düsseldorf) herauszuheben, da sie moralische Alltagsintuitionen auf eine harte Probe stellen. Krebs setzt gegen die allgemein vertretenen komparativen Standards ("Mitglieder zukünftiger Generationen sollen es durchschnittlich nicht schlechter haben als wir") absolute Standards, die von uns lediglich verlangen, zukünftigen Personen die materiellen Bedingungen eines guten Lebens zu hinterlassen. Diese Position setzt voraus, dass man einen moralischen Eigenwert von Gleichheit bestreitet. Eine derart anti-egalitaristische Zukunftsethik erlaubt es, "weniger [zu] hinterlassen, als wir selbst erhalten haben, und uns ein schönes Leben [zu] machen". Wer das nicht akzeptieren möchte, muss Argumente zu Gunsten des Egalitarismus verteidigen, die Krebs allesamt für wenig überzeugend hält. Durch ihren im besten Sinne provozierenden Vortrag hat sie eine Diskussion über die ethische Haltbarkeit egalitaristischer Intuitionen eröffnet, der man auch außerhalb des Problemkreises der Zukunftsverantwortung nicht wird ausweichen können. Birnbacher behandelt die brisante Frage nach der moralischen Zulässigkeit der pränatalen Selektion von N kommen auf Grund bestimmter (un)erwünschter Merkmale.
    Date
    22. 6.2005 15:30:21
    Theme
    Information
  11. Nerlich, H.: Schlußveranstaltung des Kongresses 'Information und Öffentlichkeit' am 23. März 2000 in Leipzig : "Zukunft der Fachinformation" (2000) 0.04 
    0.038330972 = product of:
  0.076661944 = sum of:
    0.035678204 = weight(_text_:information in 4401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035678204 = score(doc=4401,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 4401, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4401)
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 4401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=4401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 6.2000 13:33:40
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 51(2000) H.4, S.233-235
    Theme
    Information
  12. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.04 
    0.038262308 = product of:
  0.076524615 = sum of:
    0.028787723 = weight(_text_:information in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028787723 = score(doc=2748,freq=90.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
    0.047736894 = sum of:
      0.030660335 = weight(_text_:organization in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030660335 = score(doc=2748,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.17057234 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.01707656 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01707656 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  13. Donsbach, W.: Wahrheit in den Medien : über den Sinn eines methodischen Objektivitätsbegriffes (2001) 0.04 
    0.03765534 = product of:
  0.07531068 = sum of:
    0.06672784 = product of:
      0.20018351 = sum of:
        0.20018351 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20018351 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42742437 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5895, 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=5895)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Politische Meinung. 381(2001) Nr.1, S.65-74 [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgfe.de%2Ffileadmin%2FOrdnerRedakteure%2FSektionen%2FSek02_AEW%2FKWF%2FPublikationen_Reihe_1989-2003%2FBand_17%2FBd_17_1994_355-406_A.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KcbRsHy5UQ9QRIUyuOLNi]
    Theme
    Information
  14. San Segundo, R.: ¬A new conception of representation of knowledge (2004) 0.04 
    0.037533022 = product of:
  0.075066045 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=3077,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
    0.055645294 = sum of:
      0.028322803 = weight(_text_:organization in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028322803 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.15756798 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
      0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027322493 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, 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=3077)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.
    Date
    2. 1.2005 18:22:25
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.2, S.106-111
    Theme
    Information
  15. afp: Gehirn von Taxifahrern passt sich an : Größerer Hippocampus (2000) 0.04 
    0.03592316 = product of:
  0.07184632 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=4496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
    0.047814365 = product of:
      0.09562873 = sum of:
        0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09562873 = score(doc=4496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2000 19:05:18
    Theme
    Information
  16. Schneider, J.W.: Emerging frameworks and methods : The Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, July 21-25, 2002 (2002) 0.03 
    0.032327853 = product of:
  0.06465571 = sum of:
    0.0363329 = weight(_text_:information in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0363329 = score(doc=1857,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41052482 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Bericht über die Tagung und Kurzreferate zu den 18 Beiträgen (u.a. BELKIN, N.J.: A classification of interactions with information; INGWERSEN, P.: Cognitive perspectives of document representation; HJOERLAND, B.: Principia informatica: foundational theory of the concepts of information and principles of information services; TUOMINEN, K. u.a.: Discourse, cognition and reality: towards a social constructionist meta-theory for library and information science
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.231-234
    Theme
    Information
  17. Dervos, D.A.; Coleman, A.: ¬A common sense approach to defining data, information, and metadata (2006) 0.03 
    0.030958112 = product of:
  0.061916225 = sum of:
    0.026868545 = weight(_text_:information in 227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026868545 = score(doc=227,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 227, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=227)
    0.03504768 = product of:
      0.07009536 = sum of:
        0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009536 = score(doc=227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Many competing definitions for the terms data, information, metadata, and knowledge can be traced in the library and information science literature. The lack of a clear consensus in the way reference is made to the corresponding fundamental concepts is intensified if one considers additional disciplinary perspectives, e.g. database technology, data mining, etc. In the present paper, we use a common sense approach, to selectively survey the literature, and define these terms in a way that can advance the interdisciplinary development of information systems.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Theme
    Information
  18. ap: Schlaganfall : Computer-Bild zeigt den Heilungsprozess im Gehirn (2000) 0.03 
    0.030791279 = product of:
  0.061582558 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=4231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2000 19:05:31
    Theme
    Information
  19. kal: Hubert Markl zur Zukunft der Forschung (2000) 0.03 
    0.030791279 = product of:
  0.061582558 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4893, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4893)
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 4893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=4893,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4893, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4893)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    17. 7.1996 9:33:22
    Theme
    Information
  20. Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Knowledge management : Semantic drift or conceptual shift? (2000) 0.03 
    0.02921453 = product of:
  0.05842906 = sum of:
    0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02427594 = score(doc=2277,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
    0.03415312 = product of:
      0.06830624 = sum of:
        0.06830624 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06830624 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    31. 7.2001 20:22:57
    Source
    Journal of education for library and information science. 41(2000) no.?, S.294-306
    Theme
    Information

Authors

Languages

  • d 221
  • e 139
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 295
  • m 54
  • el 16
  • s 13
  • x 5
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications