Search (198 results, page 1 of 10)

0.13767964 = product of:
  0.36714572 = sum of:
    0.052449387 = product of:
      0.15734816 = sum of:
        0.15734816 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15734816 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
    0.15734816 = weight(_text_:2f in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15734816 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
    0.15734816 = weight(_text_:2f in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15734816 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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]

0.13767964 = product of:
  0.36714572 = sum of:
    0.052449387 = product of:
      0.15734816 = sum of:
        0.15734816 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15734816 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.15734816 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15734816 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
    0.15734816 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15734816 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Source

http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_

0.03314337 = product of:
  0.13257349 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=278,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Presents, at an elementary level, the central ideas of information theory in terms of naive probability theory. Information theory rests on the 2 pillars of quantifying uncertainty and coding and deals with how best to code information so that its uncertainty can be reduced most efficiently. Develops the quantification of uncertainty in 2 steps: first, the special case when all possible outcomes have the same probability; and second, the general case when all possibilities need not be equally probable. Examines 2 forms of coding: proactive and reactive. Coding is essentially an artificial classification or indexing of data and this aspect of information theory is of interest to anyone classifying, storing, and disseminating information

Source

Information studies. 2(1996) no.3, S.187-202

0.027035978 = product of:
  0.10814391 = sum of:
    0.07328778 = weight(_text_:case in 3396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07328778 = score(doc=3396,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.420663 = fieldWeight in 3396, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3396)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=3396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3396)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

We are talking about 'information' in many different contexts: not only in our ordinary language, but also in the highly specialized discourses of the theory of communication, computer science, physics, biology, cultural studies, and so forth. As we do so, are we using the same concept each and every time? Is there one and only one concept of information connecting all these different usages of one word (and its linguistic 'relatives' in languages other than English)? This question has accompanied the 'information talk' for many years and recently has lead to the so-called 'Capurro trilemma'. According to this trilemma, throughout those various contexts the words we use either (A) have the same meaning or (B) completely different meanings or (C) different meanings which nevertheless are somehow connected. As the unity of meaning is a minimal condition for the identity of a concept, in case (A) there is only one concept of information (univocity); in case (B) we deal with several concepts of information (equivocation); in case (C) it is the question of just precisely how the different concepts are interconnected. The authors describing the dilemma suggest Wittgensteinian family resemblance and Aristotelian analogy, but they do not seem to be satisfied by their solutions. Therefore, according to them, we are facing a real trilemma whose single horns are equally unattractive.

0.026502877 = product of:
  0.10601151 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=504,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Technological changes are occuring rapidly and students entering colleges are bringing very disparate computer skills and attitudes. Some students are reluctant to embrace new technologies, others demand electronic resources for all assignments. By considering the computer access and Internet resources available to elementary school students today, it is possible to imagine what tomorrow's users will expect from libraries. Although college students may arrive at libraries with increased computer skills, their knowledge of electronic information may be lacking. Defines information literacy with an overview of information literacy skills. The Digital Information Literacy programme at Texas University at Austin serves as a case study for integrating information literacy skills into traditional services and partnerships

0.024071492 = product of:
  0.09628597 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=5526,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
    0.0265737 = product of:
      0.0531474 = sum of:
        0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0531474 = score(doc=5526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This review paper examines some of the main theoretical influences prompting a reappreciation of the importance of the body and how it may be conceived as relevant to information studies (IS). It starts by placing this increased recognition of the body in its historical and social context. It then examines, in turn, how the body is viewed in the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty; practice theory; embodied cognition; and sensory studies. Existing and potential influences in information studies are discussed. Most work that reexamines the place of the body reflects the influence of Merleau-Ponty, but he has had relatively little direct impact on IS. Practice theory does deal with the body, and this has already been picked up quite strongly in IS. Work in the area of embodied cognition has the potential to fundamentally change our view of the relation of the mind and the body, and information as an aspect of that relation. Sensory studies offers a powerful framework for examining the cultural shaping of the senses as a source of information. The implications of the bodily turn for methodology are briefly discussed.

0.023807853 = product of:
  0.06348761 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3008, 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=3008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The project Information Pricing was carried out during the summer semester 2004 by four students and two lecturers. Aim of the project was to develop a new product- and pricing concept for the research centre of the Public Library Cologne. The intention was to increase its competitiveness, especially in the business customer segment. The initiating factor for the project was the significant decrease in requests from 1997 to 2001. This paper describes the development of different attributes of information, analysing various pricing concepts of private and public information providers as well as the development of a pricing concept which is aligned to the requirements and performance of the research centre. The final result was an improved pricing system for an enhanced range of products. The first step was getting more familiar with the characteristics of information and the methods that can be used to measure the value of information. One of the key issues to consider is the value of information for a customer and the question how this value can be charged. In order to be capable of evaluating all issues of information pricing and to develop a solid pricing system, it was essential to analyse and assess pricing modules based on their intension of use. For example, the differentiation of the pricing concept with regard to certain user segments like business or private users as well as members and non-members. Another option is to define prices dependant on the requested response times for research tasks and thereby reflect the urgency of those tasks directly in the pricing concept. Furthermore, the qualitative and quantitative differentiation of information has to be taken into account. All described approaches - and also combinations of these - should be considered when developing a new pricing system. It is also important to recognize the special role of the research centre as a part of the public library. Libraries fulfil a public contract for their users. In this case it has to be ensured that people of all social backgrounds have the chance to gain access to all kind of information. While presenting results to the Public library Cologne some problems arose, mainly the gap between theoretical and practical feasibility. The final result was a practical pricing system, which is easy to implement for the research centre and which is described in the paper.

Date

22. 7.2009 9:24:59

0.023687614 = product of:
  0.09475046 = sum of:
    0.02538763 = weight(_text_:case in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02538763 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14572193 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
    0.06936283 = weight(_text_:studies in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06936283 = score(doc=1265,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43865734 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).
It is my hope that domain analysis may contribute to the strengthening of the professional and scientific identity of our discipline and provide more coherence and depth in information studies. The paper is an argument about what should be core teachings in our field, It should be both broad enough to cover the important parts of IS and Specific enough to maintain a special focus and identity compared to, for example, computer science and the cognitive sciences. It is not a narrow view of information science and an the other hand it does not Set forth an unrealistic utopia."

0.01884345 = product of:
  0.0753738 = sum of:
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=2746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
    0.026575211 = product of:
      0.053150423 = sum of:
        0.053150423 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053150423 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.018749103 = product of:
  0.07499641 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.037197545 = product of:
      0.07439509 = sum of:
        0.07439509 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07439509 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

Imprint

Greenwood Village, Co. : Libraries Unlimited

0.017544128 = product of:
  0.07017651 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=3266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 3266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3266)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 3266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=3266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 3266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3266)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Imprint

Alberta : Alberta University, School of Library and Information Studies

0.01567913 = product of:
  0.06271652 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=1344,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

0.014809451 = product of:
  0.11847561 = sum of:
    0.11847561 = weight(_text_:case in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11847561 = score(doc=2732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.68003565 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.014483592 = product of:
  0.057934366 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Anthropological inquiry suggests that all societies classify animals and plants in similar ways. Paradoxically, in the same cultures that have seen large advances in biological science, citizenry's practical knowledge of nature has dramatically diminished. Here we describe historical, cross-cultural and developmental research on how people ordinarily conceptualize organic nature (folkbiology), concentrating on cognitive consequences associated with knowledge devolution. We show that results on psychological studies of categorization and reasoning from "standard populations" fail to generalize to humanity at large. Usual populations (Euro-American college students) have impoverished experience with nature, which yields misleading results about knowledge acquisition and the ontogenetic relationship between folkbiology and folkpsychology. We also show that groups living in the same habitat can manifest strikingly distinct behaviors, cognitions and social relations relative to it. This has novel implications for environmental decision making and management, including commons problems.

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.013942453 = product of:
  0.111539625 = sum of:
    0.111539625 = weight(_text_:studies in 4269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111539625 = score(doc=4269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.70538753 = fieldWeight in 4269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4269)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.013778096 = product of:
  0.11022477 = sum of:
    0.11022477 = weight(_text_:studies in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11022477 = score(doc=5589,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.69707227 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - To develop a unified research framework that synthesizes similarities between cognitive science and information studies, particularly language. This framework is proposed and explored as useful for future information study research. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis is conducted of two contemporary developments in the distinct disciplines of information studies and cognitive science. The theories of extended cognition and social constructionism are explored, focusing on the issue of context in each of the arguments. The complementarity argument is presented as the strongest argument for extended cognition, while Sanna Talja's work is offered as representative of social constructionism in information studies. The philosophical similarities between extended cognition and social constructionism are then integrated at points of similarity. Findings - Cognitive science and information studies have a number of unexpected similarities both in broad and specific terms. The opportunity to develop a synchronized research framework is presented as both feasible and mutually beneficial. Additionally, cognitive science is suggested as useful tool in bridging the gap between the frameworks of cognitivism and social constructionism in information studies. Research limitations/implications - The philosophic discussion borders on technical at times possibly limiting it to those familiar with or interested in the philosophy or meta-theory within cognitive science and information studies. Practical implications - The conclusion points to future research between cognitive science and information studies that can be conducted in further research projects. The arguments also move toward continuing discussions of interdisciplinarity in information studies. Originality/value - Cognitive science is being frequently employed in information studies research and practice. This paper presents an alternative take on how the two can relate and possible benefits, while also exploring very particular movements within each discipline.

0.012199646 = product of:
  0.09759717 = sum of:
    0.09759717 = weight(_text_:studies in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09759717 = score(doc=2753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 2753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2753)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Studies in long-term memory. Ed.: R.A. Kennedy u. A. Wilkes

0.011836918 = product of:
  0.047347672 = sum of:
    0.029919608 = weight(_text_:case in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029919608 = score(doc=5523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17173493 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
    0.017428067 = weight(_text_:studies in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017428067 = score(doc=5523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.110216804 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

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

0.010565204 = product of:
  0.08452163 = sum of:
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=3670,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Presents an overview of research on information use. The majority of use and user studies are surveys which focus on the consulting of different information sources and channels. In most studies, however, the substantial issues of information use are omitted. Discusses conceptual and terminological questions of information use and knowledge utilization. No consensus on the definition of these concepts exists among researchers because they can have no direct access to individual processes of information use. Examines the contributions made to information use theory by Brenda Dervin and Robert S. Taylor. Reviews the categories of uses specified in Dervin's sense making theory and discusses Taylor's concept of information use environments. Considers some methodological questions concerning the challenges of empirical research on information use

Footnote

Research on information use in the field of information studies

0.010565204 = product of:
  0.08452163 = sum of:
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 7668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=7668,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 7668, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7668)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Studies of public understanding, which include specific areas of study, such as: public understanding of science; intuitive physics; nutritional myths; and the 'mental mappimg' of geographical space are seen as falling into a general model of information transfer, using Popper's notion of 3 worlds. The deficiencies and distortions of understanding revealed by these studies can be perceived as defects in information transfer from worlds 1 and 3 (physical world and subjective world of mental phenomena respectively) to world2 (intellectual content of cultural artifacts). Proposes that more detailed cognitive profiling could identify these problem areas, thus enabling remedial measures to be taken to ensure better information transfer to the public in specific areas, such as: promotion of health care; education and advertising