Search (92 results, page 5 of 5)

0.001302741 = product of:
  0.0071650753 = sum of:
    0.0047346503 = weight(_text_:a in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047346503 = score(doc=1806,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The author stresses the need for a general, overall theory of cognitive psychological processes for cognitive science. The relevance of the Graz-school theorie on the 'production of ideas' is then examined as an attempt to provide such a framework. In Graz-school, at the beginning of 20th century, representation ('Vorstellung') was the foundational aspect of all the cognitive processes. As an example of an analysis of the origin of representation Stephan Witasek's theory of sensation is surveyed. The explanation of the origin of representations is also theoretically and practically important for cognitive science

Source

Acta analytica: philosophy and psychology. 1989, no.5, S.45-63

Type

a

0.001240201 = product of:
  0.0068211053 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=2792,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=2792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Some documents provoke emotions in people viewing them. Will it be possible to describe emotions consistently and use this information in retrieval systems? We tested collective (statistically aggregated) emotion indexing using images as examples. Considering psychological results, basic emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness. This study follows an approach developed by Lee and Neal (2007) for music emotion retrieval and applies scroll bars for tagging basic emotions and their intensities. A sample comprising 763 persons tagged emotions caused by images (retrieved from www.Flickr.com) applying scroll bars and (linguistic) tags. Using SPSS, we performed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. For more than half of the images, the test persons have clear emotion favorites. There are prototypical images for given emotions. The document-specific consistency of tagging using a scroll bar is, for some images, very high. Most of the (most commonly used) linguistic tags are on the basic level (in the sense of Rosch's basic level theory). The distributions of the linguistic tags in our examples follow an inverse power-law. Hence, it seems possible to apply collective image emotion tagging to image information systems and to present a new search option for basic emotions. This article is one of the first steps in the research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.5, S.863-876

Type

a

0.001194451 = product of:
  0.00656948 = sum of:
    0.0051806658 = weight(_text_:a in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051806658 = score(doc=5249,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=5249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.13, S.1155-1168

Type

a

0.001073034 = product of:
  0.005901687 = sum of:
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1126-1129

Type

a

0.001025653 = product of:
  0.005641091 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=4008,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Concept-based information retrieval and knowledge representation are in need of a theory of concepts and semantic relations. Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of knowledge organization systems (KOS) (such as ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 in the U.S.A. or DIN 2331:1980 in Germany) do not consider results of concept theory and theory of relations to the full extent. They are not able to unify the currently different worlds of traditional controlled vocabularies, of the social web (tagging and folksonomies) and of the semantic web (ontologies). Concept definitions as well as semantic relations are based on epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and critical theory). A concept is determined via its intension and extension as well as by definition. We will meet the problem of vagueness by introducing prototypes. Some important definitions are concept explanations (after Aristotle) and the definition of family resemblances (in the sense of Wittgenstein). We will model concepts as frames (according to Barsalou). The most important paradigmatic relation in KOS is hierarchy, which must be arranged into different classes: Hyponymy consists of taxonomy and simple hyponymy, meronymy consists of many different part-whole-relations. For practical application purposes, the transitivity of the given relation is very important. Unspecific associative relations are of little help to our focused applications and should be replaced by generalizable and domain-specific relations. We will discuss the reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity of paradigmatic relations as well as the appearance of specific semantic relations in the different kinds of KOS (folksonomies, nomenclatures, classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies). Finally, we will pick out KOS as a central theme of the Semantic Web.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.1951-1969

Type

a

0.0010039193 = product of:
  0.005521556 = sum of:
    0.0041327416 = weight(_text_:a in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041327416 = score(doc=2343,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.5, S.643-666

Type

a

9.812339E-4 = product of:
  0.005396786 = sum of:
    0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033135647 = score(doc=210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1794-1803

Type

a

9.3890476E-4 = product of:
  0.005163976 = sum of:
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Pages

S.389-407

Type

a

7.378676E-4 = product of:
  0.008116543 = sum of:
    0.008116543 = weight(_text_:a in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008116543 = score(doc=2205,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 2205, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2205)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Type

a

5.0502334E-4 = product of:
  0.0055552567 = sum of:
    0.0055552567 = weight(_text_:s in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055552567 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Pages

126 S

2.485047E-4 = product of:
  0.0027335514 = sum of:
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 3770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=3770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3770)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Type

a

2.2094771E-4 = product of:
  0.0024304248 = sum of:
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=182)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Pages

XVII, 147 S