Search (4069 results, page 204 of 204)

8.923609E-4 = product of:
  0.0035694437 = sum of:
    0.0035694437 = weight(_text_:information in 3034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035694437 = score(doc=3034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3034)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Mr du Sautoy probes these limits throughout his book. He talks about the origins of the universe in the Big Bang, the discovery of subatomic particles (starting with the positron in the 1930s) and the disappearance of matter and information into black holes. There are also fascinating details about the human brain, where his discussion ranges from the structure of neurons to the problem of consciousness. Eventually, he turns to his own field of mathematics. If people cannot know everything about the physical world, then perhaps they can at least rely on mathematical truth? But even here there are limits. Mathematicians have shown that some theorems have proofs so long that it would take the lifetime of the universe to finish them. And no mathematical system is complete: as Kurt Gödel, an Austrian logician, showed in the 1930s, there are always true statements that the system is not strong enough to prove. Where does this leave us? In the end, Mr du Sautoy has an optimistic message. There may be things people will never know, but they don't know what they are. And ultimately, it is the desire to know the unknown that inspires humankind's search for knowledge in the first place."

8.923609E-4 = product of:
  0.0035694437 = sum of:
    0.0035694437 = weight(_text_:information in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035694437 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Dr Howe and his colleagues do, however, believe that the study of diagrams can result in new insights. A figure showing new metabolic pathways in a cell, for example, may summarise hundreds of experiments. Since illustrations can convey important scientific concepts in this way, they think that browsing through related figures from different papers may help researchers come up with new theories. As Dr Howe puts it, "the unit of scientific currency is closer to the figure than to the paper." With this thought in mind, the team have created a website (viziometrics.org (http://viziometrics.org/) ) where the millions of images sorted by their program can be searched using key words. Their next plan is to extract the information from particular types of scientific figure, to create comprehensive "super" figures: a giant network of all the known chemical processes in a cell for example, or the best-available tree of life. At just one such superfigure per paper, though, the citation records of articles containing such all-embracing diagrams may very well undermine the correlation that prompted their creation in the first place. Call it the ultimate marriage of chart and science.

8.4132596E-4 = product of:
  0.0033653039 = sum of:
    0.0033653039 = weight(_text_:information in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033653039 = score(doc=4561,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.054858685 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

In which I introduce the ancient mind-body problem, explain why I am on a quest to use reason and empirical inquiry to solve it, acquaint you with Francis Crick, explain how he relates to this quest, make a confession, and end on a sad note -- In which I write about the wellsprings of my inner conflict between religion and reason, why I grew up wanting to be a scientist, why I wear a lapel pin of Professor Calculus, and how I acquired a second mentor late in life -- In which I explain why consciousness challenges the scientific view of the world, how consciousness can be investigated empirically with both feet firmly planted on the ground, why animals share consciousness with humans, and why self-consciousness is not as important as many people think it is -- In which you hear tales of scientist-magicians that make you look but not see, how they track the footprints of consciousness by peering into your skull, why you don't see with your eyes, and why attention and consciousness are not the same -- In which you learn from neurologists and neurosurgeons that some neurons care a great deal about celebrities, that cutting the cerebral cortex in two does not reduce consciousness by half, that color is leached from the world by the loss of a small cortical region, and that the destruction of a sugar cube-sized chunk of brain stem or thalamic tissue leaves you undead -- In which I defend two propositions that my younger self found nonsense--you are unaware of most of the things that go on in your head, and zombie agents control much of your life, even though you confidently believe that you are in charge -- In which I throw caution to the wind, bring up free will, Der ring des Nibelungen, and what physics says about determinism, explain the impoverished ability of your mind to choose, show that your will lags behind your brain's decision, and that freedom is just another word for feeling -- In which I argue that consciousness is a fundamental property of complex things, rhapsodize about integrated information theory, how it explains many puzzling facts about consciousness and provides a blueprint for building sentient machines -- In which I outline an electromagnetic gadget to measure consciousness, describe efforts to harness the power of genetic engineering to track consciousness in mice, and find myself building cortical observatories -- In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations.

Footnote

Now it might seem that is a fairly well-defined scientific task: just figure out how the brain does it. In the end I think that is the right attitude to have. But our peculiar history makes it difficult to have exactly that attitude-to take consciousness as a biological phenomenon like digestion or photosynthesis, and figure out how exactly it works as a biological phenomenon. Two philosophical obstacles cast a shadow over the whole subject. The first is the tradition of God, the soul, and immortality. Consciousness is not a part of the ordinary biological world of digestion and photosynthesis: it is part of a spiritual world. It is sometimes thought to be a property of the soul and the soul is definitely not a part of the physical world. The other tradition, almost as misleading, is a certain conception of Science with a capital "S." Science is said to be "reductionist" and "materialist," and so construed there is no room for consciousness in Science. If it really exists, consciousness must really be something else. It must be reducible to something else, such as neuron firings, computer programs running in the brain, or dispositions to behavior. There are also a number of purely technical difficulties to neurobiological research. The brain is an extremely complicated mechanism with about a hundred billion neurons in ... (Rest nicht frei). " [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/01/10/can-information-theory-explain-consciousness/].

7.4363407E-4 = product of:
  0.0029745363 = sum of:
    0.0029745363 = weight(_text_:information in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029745363 = score(doc=3370,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 3370, 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=3370)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>

7.4363407E-4 = product of:
  0.0029745363 = sum of:
    0.0029745363 = weight(_text_:information in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029745363 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 4300, 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=4300)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.

7.4363407E-4 = product of:
  0.0029745363 = sum of:
    0.0029745363 = weight(_text_:information in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029745363 = score(doc=4519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 4519, 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=4519)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung" Im Oktober 2008 startete an der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung". Über zwei Jahre hinweg wurde untersucht, welchen Beitrag das Web-2.0-Phänomen Tagging für die inhaltliche Erschließung von bisher nicht erschlossenen und somit der Nutzung kaum zugänglichen Dokumenten leisten kann. Die freie Vergabe von Schlagwörtern in Datenbanken durch die Nutzer selbst hatte sich bereits auf vielen Plattformen als äußerst effizient herausgestellt, insbesondere bei Inhalten, die einer automatischen Erschließung nicht zugänglich sind. So wurden riesige Mengen von Bildern (FlickR), Filmen (YouTube) oder Musik (LastFM) durch das Tagging recherchierbar und identifizierbar gemacht. Die Fragestellung des Projektes war entsprechend, ob und in welcher Qualität sich durch das gleiche Verfahren beispielsweise Dokumente auf Volltextservern oder in elektronischen Zeitschriften erschließen lassen. Für die Beantwortung dieser Frage, die ggf. weitreichende Konsequenzen für die Sacherschließung durch Fachreferenten haben konnte, wurde ein ganzer Komplex von Teilfragen und Teilschritten ermittelt bzw. konzipiert. Im Kern ging es aber in allen Untersuchungsschritten immer um zwei zentrale Dimensionen, nämlich um die "Akzeptanz" und um die "Qualität" des Taggings. Die Akzeptanz des Taggings wurde zunächst bei den Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern der Universität Mannheim evaluiert. Für bestimmte Zeiträume wurden Tagging-Systeme in unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen an die Recherchedienste der Universitätsbibliothek angebunden. Die Akzeptanz der einzelnen Systemausprägungen konnte dann durch die Analyse von Logfiles und durch Datenbankabfragen ausgewertet werden. Für die Qualität der Erschließung wurde auf einen Methodenmix zurückgegriffen, der im Verlauf des Projektes immer wieder an aktuelle Entwicklungen und an die Ergebnisse aus den vorangegangenen Analysen angepaßt wurde. Die Tags wurden hinsichtlich ihres Beitrags zum Information Retrieval mit Verfahren der automatischen Indexierung von Volltexten sowie mit der Erschließung durch Fachreferenten verglichen. Am Schluss sollte eine gut begründete Empfehlung stehen, wie bisher nicht erschlossene Dokumente am besten indexiert werden können: automatisch, mit Tags oder durch eine Kombination von beiden Verfahren.

7.4363407E-4 = product of:
  0.0029745363 = sum of:
    0.0029745363 = weight(_text_:information in 4610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029745363 = score(doc=4610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 4610, 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=4610)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Der Traum vom dynamischen, ständig wachsenden Wissensnetz Auch, weil Otlet bereits darüber nachdachte, wie in seinem vernetzten Wissenskatalog Anmerkungen einfließen könnten, die Fehler korrigieren oder Widerspruch abbilden. Vor dieser Analogie warnt jedoch Charles van den Heuvel von der Königlichen Niederländischen Akademie der Künste und Wissenschaften: Seiner Interpretation zufolge schwebte Otlet ein System vor, in dem Wissen hierarchisch geordnet ist: Nur eine kleine Gruppe von Wissenschaftlern sollte an der Einordnung von Wissen arbeiten; Bearbeitungen und Anmerkungen sollten, anders etwa als bei der Wikipedia, nicht mit der Information verschmelzen, sondern sie lediglich ergänzen. Das Netz, das Otlet sich ausmalte, ging weit über das World Wide Web mit seiner Hypertext-Struktur hinaus. Otlet wollte nicht nur Informationen miteinander verbunden werden - die Links sollten noch zusätzlich mit Bedeutung aufgeladen werden. Viele Experten sind sich einig, dass diese Idee von Otlet viele Parallelen zu dem Konzept des "semantischen Netz" aufweist. Dessen Ziel ist es, die Bedeutung von Informationen für Rechner verwertbar zu machen - so dass Informationen von ihnen interpretiert werden und maschinell weiterverarbeitet werden können. Projekte, die sich an einer Verwirklichung des semantischen Netzes versuchen, könnten von einem Blick auf Otlets Konzepte profitieren, so van den Heuvel, von dessen Überlegungen zu Hierarchie und Zentralisierung in dieser Frage. Im Mundaneum in Mons arbeitet man derzeit daran, Otlets Arbeiten zu digitalisieren, um sie ins Netz zu stellen. Das dürfte zwar noch ziemlich lange dauern, warnt Archivar Gillen. Aber wenn es soweit ist, wird sich endlich Otlets Vision erfüllen: Seine Sammlung des Wissens wird der Welt zugänglich sein. Papierlos, für jeden abrufbar."

7.4363407E-4 = product of:
  0.0029745363 = sum of:
    0.0029745363 = weight(_text_:information in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029745363 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 2186, 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=2186)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

"How we long to find the right words to introduce you and stir your enthusiasm for this special issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly--Indigenous Knowledge Organization. In these articles, we will share with you the inherent beauty in how and why Indigenous people express and fulfill their desire to learn, preserve, organize, and share knowledge. This knowledge is embedded in stories that find expression and location in libraries, archives, and museums. If we explore the situation today, we find that there have been tremendous advancements in knowledge and an unforeseeable proliferation of information. No one can grasp or master it all. This explosion often leads to a sense of fragmentation. On a fundamental level, as human beings, we yearn to understand all this. Where does the knowledge come from? Is there an inherent order to it? How do all the pieces of knowledge fit together? And what is their purpose? We propose that these are questions of philosophy, which Indigenous people have addressed. The articles in this issue range from explicit discussions of Indigenous philosophies to application of such in library, archives, and museums settings. The narratives are compelling. They are first and foremost Indigenous stories fundamentally grounded in a sense of "place" that is endemic to, and inseparable from, indigeneity. If "place" is the luminous web that holds everything "in place," it is good to introduce you to the three places that frame this issue: New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. We begin our journey in New Zealand. In "Ka Po, Ka Ao, Ka Awatea: The Interface between Epistemology and Maori Subject Headings," Lilley analyzes Maori subject headings (Nga Upoko Tukutuku) in the context of Maori philosophy. He argues that the underlying knowledge framework is based on a hierarchy of relationships that emanates from the natural order and that is critical to the understanding of Maori epistemology.

5.9490727E-4 = product of:
  0.002379629 = sum of:
    0.002379629 = weight(_text_:information in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002379629 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.03879095 = fieldWeight in 4436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4436)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information