Search (241 results, page 1 of 13)

0.1141954 = product of:
  0.1712931 = sum of:
    0.033817217 = weight(_text_:data in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033817217 = score(doc=2340,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
    0.13747588 = sum of:
      0.09600051 = weight(_text_:processing in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09600051 = score(doc=2340,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051020417 = queryNorm
          0.4648076 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
      0.04147537 = weight(_text_:22 in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04147537 = score(doc=2340,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051020417 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2340, 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=2340)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The idea of obtaining subject access to information by being able to visualize an information space, and to navigate through that space toward useful or interesting information, is attractive and plausible. However, this approach to subject access requires additional cognitive processing associated with the interaction of cognitive facilities that deal with concepts and those that deal with space. This additional cognitive processing may cause problems for users, particularly in dealing with the dimensions, the details, and the symbols of information space. Further, it seems likely that different cognitive abilities are associated with conceptual and spatial cognition. As a result, users who deal well with subject access using traditional conceptual approaches may experience difficulty in using visualization and navigation. An experiment designed to investigate the effects of different cognitive abilities on the use of both conceptual and spatial representations of information is outlined

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.08932869 = product of:
  0.13399303 = sum of:
    0.094539605 = product of:
      0.2836188 = sum of:
        0.2836188 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2836188 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43255165 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.03945342 = weight(_text_:data in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03945342 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.075367674 = product of:
  0.22610301 = sum of:
    0.22610301 = sum of:
      0.12932713 = weight(_text_:processing in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12932713 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051020417 = queryNorm
          0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.09677587 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09677587 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051020417 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5772, 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=5772)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.5, S.373-383

0.074943006 = product of:
  0.1124145 = sum of:
    0.08822054 = weight(_text_:data in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08822054 = score(doc=1296,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.5468357 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.024193967 = product of:
      0.048387934 = sum of:
        0.048387934 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048387934 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

0.06941133 = product of:
  0.10411699 = sum of:
    0.03945342 = weight(_text_:data in 5408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03945342 = score(doc=5408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5408, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5408)
    0.06466357 = product of:
      0.12932713 = sum of:
        0.12932713 = weight(_text_:processing in 5408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12932713 = score(doc=5408,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 5408, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The basic entity model aims to provide information processing with a better theoretical foundation. Human information processing systems are perceived as physical symbol systems. The 4 basic entities that these systems handle are: data, information, knowledge and wisdom. The postulates fundamental to the model are the laws of boundary, interaction, and constructed information systems. The transformation of the basic entities taking place in the model create an information space that contains a set of information states in a particular knowledge domain. The space serves as a platform for decision making. Uses the model to analyze the strucuture of constructed information systems mathematically. Adopts the ontological, deep structure approach

Source

Information processing and management. 32(1996) no.4, S.477-487

0.06830075 = product of:
  0.102451116 = sum of:
    0.022544812 = weight(_text_:data in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022544812 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
    0.0799063 = sum of:
      0.052256055 = weight(_text_:processing in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052256055 = score(doc=3077,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051020417 = queryNorm
          0.2530092 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
      0.027650248 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027650248 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051020417 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.06767975 = product of:
  0.101519614 = sum of:
    0.055795565 = weight(_text_:data in 7156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055795565 = score(doc=7156,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 7156, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7156)
    0.045724045 = product of:
      0.09144809 = sum of:
        0.09144809 = weight(_text_:processing in 7156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09144809 = score(doc=7156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.4427661 = fieldWeight in 7156, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

LCSH

Communication / Data processing

Subject

Communication / Data processing

0.06198751 = product of:
  0.092981264 = sum of:
    0.045089625 = weight(_text_:data in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045089625 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.047891635 = product of:
      0.09578327 = sum of:
        0.09578327 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09578327 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.05454498 = product of:
  0.08181747 = sum of:
    0.033817217 = weight(_text_:data in 8468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033817217 = score(doc=8468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 8468, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8468)
    0.048000254 = product of:
      0.09600051 = sum of:
        0.09600051 = weight(_text_:processing in 8468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09600051 = score(doc=8468,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.4648076 = fieldWeight in 8468, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Management information systems (MIS) is a young and dynamic technological discipline that is greatly in need of a theoretical foundation in order to be recognized as an academic field. A key to this search is the construction of a paradigm which engulfs a set of objects that is genuinely indigenous to MIS. This study is a modest attempt to identify this set of objects and to construct a simple model based on them. A basic entity model is constructed to provide a better understanding for the fundamental theory of information. The model identifies the four basic entities which define the scope of information theory and establishes the 4 fundamental postulates which can serve as its foundation. The 4 basic entities are data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. The order of the entity as specified is important. Each entity is transformed to the next higher one during entity processing reduces the entropy of the entity so that further analysis can be executed more systematically. This concept enforces the fact that all computerized information systems also have a similar basic role

Source

Information processing and management. 30(1994) no.5, S.647-661

0.048672836 = product of:
  0.07300925 = sum of:
    0.033817217 = weight(_text_:data in 4602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033817217 = score(doc=4602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 4602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4602)
    0.03919204 = product of:
      0.07838408 = sum of:
        0.07838408 = weight(_text_:processing in 4602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07838408 = score(doc=4602,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.3795138 = fieldWeight in 4602, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

User problems with large information spaces multiply in complexity when we enter the digital domain. Virtual information environments can offer 3D representations, reconfigurations, and access to large databases that may overwhelm many users' abilities to filter and represent. As a result, user frequently experience disorienting in navigation large digital spaces to locate an duse information. To date, the research response has been predominantly based on the analysis of visual navigational aids that might support users' bottom-up processing of the spatial display. In the present paper, an emerging alternative is considered that places greater emphasis on the top-down application of semantic knowledge by the user gleaned from their experiences within the sociocognitive context of information production and consumption. A distinction between spatial and semantic cues is introduced, and existing empirical data are reviewed that highlight the differential reliance on spatial or semantic information as the domain expertise of the user increases. The conclusion is reached that interfaces for shaping information should be built on an increasing analysis of users' semantic processing

0.048493247 = product of:
  0.07273987 = sum of:
    0.045089625 = weight(_text_:data in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045089625 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
    0.027650248 = product of:
      0.055300497 = sum of:
        0.055300497 = weight(_text_:22 in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055300497 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

While knowledge management is seen to be the biggest thing to hit the information profession since the Internet, the concept is surrounded by confusion. Traces the progress of knowledge on the information continuum which extends from data to informed decision. The reason for which knowledge management has suddenly become inluential is that its principal proponents now are not information professionals but management consultants seeking to retain their intellectual capital. Explains the reasons for this, the practical meaning of knowledge management and what information professionals should be doing to take advantage of the vogue

Source

Information world review. 1997, no.130, S.22

0.048342675 = product of:
  0.07251401 = sum of:
    0.039853975 = weight(_text_:data in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039853975 = score(doc=306,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
    0.032660034 = product of:
      0.06532007 = sum of:
        0.06532007 = weight(_text_:processing in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06532007 = score(doc=306,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.3162615 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

LCSH

Electronic data processing

Subject

Electronic data processing

0.047856804 = product of:
  0.071785204 = sum of:
    0.03945342 = weight(_text_:data in 4914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03945342 = score(doc=4914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 4914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4914)
    0.032331783 = product of:
      0.06466357 = sum of:
        0.06466357 = weight(_text_:processing in 4914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06466357 = score(doc=4914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 4914, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4914)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article reviews results from a research project designed to understand the mediating influence of information technology on information behavior. During the analysis of the data, five modes of information behavior were uncovered. These provide us with a reconceptualization of core information-seeking and search activities, as well as a fruitful opening to redevelop, augment, or complement existing models of information behavior. The findings resonate with emerging theories of decision making and judgement and illustrate the need for information behavior researchers to undertake research in differing contexts. The work illuminates an issue of current concern for public policy: police use of information in decision making.

0.042431593 = product of:
  0.06364739 = sum of:
    0.03945342 = weight(_text_:data in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03945342 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
    0.024193967 = product of:
      0.048387934 = sum of:
        0.048387934 = weight(_text_:22 in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048387934 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Die moderne Gesellschaft leidet an Reizüberflutung durch Fernsehen, Internet, Zeitschriften aller Art. Jack Meadows, Professor für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft setzt sich mit Definitionen zu Begriffen wie 'Data', 'Information', 'Communication' oder 'Knowledge' auseinander, die für uns alläglich geworden sind. wie verarbeiten wir den Fluss von wichtigen und unwichtigen Informationen, der täglich auf uns einströmt? Welche 'Daten' sind es für uns Wert, gespeichert zu werden, welche vergessen wir nach kurzer Zeit? Wann wird aus Information Wissen oder gar Weisheit? Das Buch ist eine grundlegende Einführung in das weitläufige Thema Information und Wissensmanagement

Date

15. 6.2002 19:22:01

0.042431593 = product of:
  0.06364739 = sum of:
    0.03945342 = weight(_text_:data in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03945342 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
    0.024193967 = product of:
      0.048387934 = sum of:
        0.048387934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048387934 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Survivors of intimate partner violence face more than information gaps; many face powerful barriers in the form of information myths. Triangulating data from in-depth interviews and community bulletin board postings, this study incorporates insights from survivors, police, and shelter staff to begin mapping the information landscape through which survivors move. An unanticipated feature of that landscape is a set of 28 compelling information myths that prevent some survivors from making effective use of the social, legal, economic, and support resources available to them. This analysis of the sources, contexts, and consequences of these information myths is the first step in devising strategies to counter their ill effects.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:16:44

0.041020118 = product of:
  0.061530173 = sum of:
    0.033817217 = weight(_text_:data in 1705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033817217 = score(doc=1705,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1705, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1705)
    0.027712956 = product of:
      0.055425912 = sum of:
        0.055425912 = weight(_text_:processing in 1705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055425912 = score(doc=1705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 1705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Dem von Uwe Jochum diagnostizierten häufigen Versuch, den modernen mathematisch-nachrichtentechnischen Begriff der Information in die Geschichte zurückzuspiegeln und also alle möglichen Informationsbegriffe als Vorformen und Spielarten desselben auszuweisen, widerstrebt der (sit venia verbo) medienarchäologische Blick, der auf die Diskontinuitäten, die Brüche und Unvereinbarkeiten in der Genealogie des Informationsbegriffs zwischen analogen und digitalen, logischen und mathematischen, philosophischen und nondiskursiven Konzeptionen von Wissen achtet - und vor allem zwischen einer metaphorischen Beschreibung gesellschaftlicher Prozesse und einem medialen Begriff der Übertragung trennt. Eine genaue Lektüre des antiken Wissens-Verständnisses entdeckt in Aristoteles' Schrift Über die Seele tatsächlich den Begriff des "Mediums", des to metaxy als des "Dazwischen". Der ganze Unterschied zwischen aristotelischen und digitalen Medien liegt aber bekanntlich darin, daß im letzteren Zwischenraum tatsächlich etwas geschieht, ein data processing, das nicht länger ausschließlich von der Kognition des Menschen abhängig ist, sondern die Fähigkeit zum feedback besitzt - die begriffliche Alternative zum Wissensbegriff.

0.03834938 = product of:
  0.057524066 = sum of:
    0.03904876 = weight(_text_:data in 5097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03904876 = score(doc=5097,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.24204408 = fieldWeight in 5097, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5097)
    0.018475305 = product of:
      0.03695061 = sum of:
        0.03695061 = weight(_text_:processing in 5097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03695061 = score(doc=5097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.17890452 = fieldWeight in 5097, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Previous research investigated how to leverage the new type of social data available on the web, e.g., tags, ratings and reviews, in recommending and personalizing information. However, previous works mainly focused on predicting ratings using collaborative filtering or quantifying personalized ranking quality in simulations. As a consequence, the effect of social information in user's information search and information-selection behavior remains elusive. The objective of our research is to investigate the effects of social information on users' interactive search and information-selection behavior. We present a computational method and a system implementation combining different graph overlays: social, personal and search-time user input that are visualized for the user to support interactive information search. We report on a controlled laboratory experiment, in which 24 users performed search tasks using three system variants with different graphs as overlays composed from the largest publicly available social content and review data from Yelp: personal preferences, tags combined with personal preferences, and tags and social ratings combined with personal preferences. Data comprising search logs, questionnaires, simulations, and eye-tracking recordings show that: 1) the search effectiveness is improved by using and visualizing the social rating information and the personal preference information as compared to content-based ranking. 2) The need to consult external information before selecting information is reduced by the presentation of the effects of different overlays on the search results. Search effectiveness improvements can be attributed to the use of social rating and personal preference overlays, which was also confirmed in a follow-up simulation study. With the proposed method we demonstrate that social information can be incorporated to the interactive search process by overlaying graphs representing different information sources. We show that the combination of social rating information and personal preference information improves search effectiveness and reduce the need to consult external information. Our method and findings can inform the design of interactive search systems that leverage the information available on the social web.

Source

Information processing and management. 53(2017) no.6, S.1269-1286

0.036369935 = product of:
  0.054554902 = sum of:
    0.033817217 = weight(_text_:data in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033817217 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
    0.020737685 = product of:
      0.04147537 = sum of:
        0.04147537 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147537 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1786648 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 73, 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=73)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The central problem with understanding brain and mind is the neural code issue: understanding the matter of our brain as basis for the phenomena of our mind. The richness with which our mind represents our environment, the parsimony of genetic data, the tremendous efficiency with which the brain learns from scant sensory input and the creativity with which our mind constructs mental worlds all speak in favor of mind as an emergent phenomenon. This raises the further issue of how the neural code supports these processes of organization. The central point of this communication is that the neural code has the form of structured net fragments that are formed by network self-organization, activate and de-activate on the functional time scale, and spontaneously combine to form larger nets with the same basic structure.

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

0.034183435 = product of:
  0.05127515 = sum of:
    0.028181016 = weight(_text_:data in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028181016 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
    0.02309413 = product of:
      0.04618826 = sum of:
        0.04618826 = weight(_text_:processing in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04618826 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reading Comprehension tests are commonly used to assess the degree to which people comprehend what they read. This is why we work with the hypothesis that it is reasonable to use these tests to assess the degree to which a machine "comprehends" what it is reading. In this work, we evaluate Question Answering systems using Reading Comprehension tests from exams to enter University. This article analyses the datasets generated, the kind of inferences required, the methodology followed in three evaluation campaigns, the approaches presented by participants and current results. Besides, we study the evolution of systems and the main lessons learned in this evaluation process. We also show how current technologies are unable to pass university-entrance exams. This is because these tests require a deep understanding of texts, as well as detecting the similar meaning of phrases with different words. Future directions focused on these ideas seem more promising than including a massive amount of data for training systems, what has allowed systems to obtain outstanding results in Reading Comprehension tests with more straightforward questions. We think this study helps to increase the knowledge about how to develop better Question Answering systems.

Source

Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.4, S.564-575

0.033839874 = product of:
  0.050759807 = sum of:
    0.027897783 = weight(_text_:data in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027897783 = score(doc=158,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16132914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051020417 = queryNorm
        0.17292464 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
    0.022862023 = product of:
      0.045724045 = sum of:
        0.045724045 = weight(_text_:processing in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045724045 = score(doc=158,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20653816 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051020417 = queryNorm
            0.22138305 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Many definitions of information have been suggested throughout the history of information science. In this essay, the objective has been to provide a definition that is usable for the physical, biological and social meanings of the term, covering the various senses important to our field. Information has been defined as the pattern of organization of matter and energy. Information is everywhere except where there is total entropy. Living beings process, organize and ascribe meaning to information. Some pattern of organization that has been given meaning by a living being has been defined as information 2, while the above definition is information 1, when it is desirable to make the distinction. Knowledge has been defined as information given meaning and integrated with other contents of understanding. Meaning itself is rooted ultimately in biological survival. In the human being, extensive processing space in the brain has made possible the generation of extremely rich cultural and interpersonal meaning, which imbues human interactions. (In the short term, not all meaning that humans ascribe to information is the result of evolutionary processes. Our extensive brain processing space also enables us to hold beliefs for the short term that, over the long term, may actually be harmful to survival.) Data 1 has been defined as that portion of the entire information environment (including internal inputs) that is taken in, or processed, by an organism. Data 2 is that information that is selected or generated and used by human beings for research or other social purposes. This definition of information is not reductive--that is, it does not imply that information is all and only the most microscopic physical manifestation of matter and energy. Information principally exists for organisms at many emergent levels. A human being, for example, can see this account as tiny marks on a piece of paper, as letters of the alphabet, as words of the English language, as a sequence of ideas, as a genre of publication, as a philosophical position and so on. Thus, patterns of organization are not all equal in the life experience of animals. Some types of patterns are more important, some less so. Some parts of patterns are repetitive and can be compressed in mental storage. As mental storage space is generally limited and its maintenance costly to an animal, adaptive advantage accrues to the species that develops efficient storage. As a result, many species process elements of their environment in ways efficient and effective for their particular purposes; that is, as patterns of organization that are experienced as emergent wholes. We see a chair as a chair, not only as a pattern of light and dark. We see a string of actions by a salesperson as bait and switch, not just as a sequence of actions. We understand a series of statements as parts of a whole philosophical argument, not just as a series of sentences. The understanding of information embraced here recognizes and builds on the idea that these emergent wholes are efficient for storage and effective for the life purposes of human beings as successful animals (to date) on our planet. Thus, people experience their lives in terms of these emergent objects and relations, for the most part. Likewise, information is stored in retrieval systems in such a way that it can be represented to human beings in their preferred emergent forms, rather than in the pixels or bits in which the information is actually encoded within the information system.