Search (1315 results, page 2 of 66)

0.023361482 = product of:
  0.070084445 = sum of:
    0.070084445 = product of:
      0.14016889 = sum of:
        0.14016889 = weight(_text_:firm in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14016889 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.41307074 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.023361482 = product of:
  0.070084445 = sum of:
    0.070084445 = product of:
      0.14016889 = sum of:
        0.14016889 = weight(_text_:firm in 4401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14016889 = score(doc=4401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.41307074 = fieldWeight in 4401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - There is a lack of efficiency when dealing with information and searching for the right content. Aims to present a procedural model which in essence is a generalized approach to terminology management, with which to build and maintain glossaries and taxonomies. Design/methodology/approach - In addition to an extensive literature review, analysis of three action research cases with several corporate partners is presented. The first case focuses on the introduction of a glossary for a Swiss insurance company. The second illustrates the results from setting up a corporate taxonomy at an international professional services firm. The third case combines glossary and taxonomy for document classification and retrieval. Findings - Glossary and taxonomy are suitable for solving a wide range of terminological defects. Usage and maintenance processes play a central role in the management of terms and should be well defined. Only a well-suited trade-off between centralized and decentralized terminology management will be sustainable. Research limitations/implications - Other means besides clearly defined processes have to be defined to clearly eliminate certain issues. Furthermore, there is the question of whether the implementation of terminology management could benefit certain types of companies in certain industry branches more than others. Practical implications - Concrete actions that have to be taken into consideration when introducing glossary and taxonomy systems. Originality/value - Proposes a procedural model for the introduction of glossary and taxonomy as well as the cultivation of a corporate terminology.

0.023361482 = product of:
  0.070084445 = sum of:
    0.070084445 = product of:
      0.14016889 = sum of:
        0.14016889 = weight(_text_:firm in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14016889 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.41307074 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to show how information in digital collections that have been catalogued using high-quality metadata can be retrieved more easily by users of search engines such as Google. Design/methodology/approach - The research and proposals described arose from an investigation into the observed phenomenon that pages from the Glasgow Digital Library (gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk) were regularly appearing near the top of Google search results shortly after publication, without any deliberate effort to achieve this. The reasons for this phenomenon are now well understood and are described in the second part of the paper. The first part provides context with a review of the impact of Google and a summary of recent initiatives by commercial publishers to make their content more visible to search engines. Findings - The literature research provides firm evidence of a trend amongst publishers to ensure that their online content is indexed by Google, in recognition of its popularity with internet users. The practical research demonstrates how search engine accessibility can be compatible with use of established collection management principles and high-quality metadata. Originality/value - The concept of data shoogling is introduced, involving some simple techniques for metadata optimisation. Details of its practical application are given, to illustrate how those working in academic, cultural and public-sector organisations could make their digital collections more easily accessible via search engines, without compromising any existing standards and practices.

0.023361482 = product of:
  0.070084445 = sum of:
    0.070084445 = product of:
      0.14016889 = sum of:
        0.14016889 = weight(_text_:firm in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14016889 = score(doc=212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.41307074 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The resource-based view suggests that organizations achieve and maintain competitive advantage through effective deployment of firm-specific resources and capabilities. Because of volatile market conditions, researchers now focus on the development of dynamic capabilities that allow firms to react and create change in these dynamic environments. Despite the growing acceptance of the dynamic capabilities perspective in information systems research, the process of how organizations develop capabilities to influence the overall process of strategy formation and implementation in a dynamic and volatile environment (e.g., the information communication technology industry) is still underexplored. To address the knowledge gap, this article draws on an in-depth case study of the capability development experience of a call center in strategic transformation from an in-house customer service department to an outsourced customer service provider. We use Montealegre's (2002) process model of capability development as our analytical framework and extend it beyond the organizational perspective to include a project-level (business unit) perspective. By adopting a dual-level analysis, researchers and practitioners may obtain a more detailed and complete view of an organization's capability development, hence allaying criticism of the resource-based view as a vague and tautological concept.

0.023361482 = product of:
  0.070084445 = sum of:
    0.070084445 = product of:
      0.14016889 = sum of:
        0.14016889 = weight(_text_:firm in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14016889 = score(doc=3091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.41307074 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article aims at identifying the factors influencing the implementation of Web accessibility (WA) by European banks and its effects on the visibility through the Internet. We studied a database made up of 51 European banks whose shares are included in the Dow Jones EURO STOXX® TMI Banks [8300] Index. Regarding the factors for the implementation of WA, we considered two feasible reasons. First, WA adoption can be motivated by operational factors, as WA can contribute to increase the efficiency of the operations. Second, WA can also be understood as a part of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy, so banks that are more committed with CSR should be more prone to implement WA. However, our results indicate that neither operational nor social factors seem to have exerted a significant influence on WA adoption. An implication of these findings is the advisability of orientating governmental policies to firm awareness of the fact that WA should be a part of the CSR activities of banks. Regarding the effects of the implementation of WA, our results indicate that the effort pays dividends in terms of Internet visibility. This could eventually contribute to increase future revenues and, therefore, the performance of WA-committed banks.

0.023187641 = product of:
  0.06956292 = sum of:
    0.06956292 = product of:
      0.13912584 = sum of:
        0.13912584 = weight(_text_:22 in 4362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13912584 = score(doc=4362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4362, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:22:27

0.023187641 = product of:
  0.06956292 = sum of:
    0.06956292 = product of:
      0.13912584 = sum of:
        0.13912584 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13912584 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2005 9:16:22

0.023187641 = product of:
  0.06956292 = sum of:
    0.06956292 = product of:
      0.13912584 = sum of:
        0.13912584 = weight(_text_:22 in 4109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13912584 = score(doc=4109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4109, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

14. 8.2005 14:22:22

0.02129921 = product of:
  0.063897625 = sum of:
    0.063897625 = product of:
      0.12779525 = sum of:
        0.12779525 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12779525 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:16:22

0.020289186 = product of:
  0.06086756 = sum of:
    0.06086756 = product of:
      0.12173512 = sum of:
        0.12173512 = weight(_text_:22 in 502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12173512 = score(doc=502,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 502, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
22. 9.2003 10:02:00

0.020289186 = product of:
  0.06086756 = sum of:
    0.06086756 = product of:
      0.12173512 = sum of:
        0.12173512 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12173512 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 14:19:22

0.020021578 = product of:
  0.060064733 = sum of:
    0.060064733 = product of:
      0.1801942 = sum of:
        0.1801942 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1801942 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38474393 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, 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=692)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.

0.018689185 = product of:
  0.056067556 = sum of:
    0.056067556 = product of:
      0.11213511 = sum of:
        0.11213511 = weight(_text_:firm in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11213511 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.33045658 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.018689185 = product of:
  0.056067556 = sum of:
    0.056067556 = product of:
      0.11213511 = sum of:
        0.11213511 = weight(_text_:firm in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11213511 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.33045658 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This book is an extension of the discussions presented in Blair's 1990 book "Language and Representation in Information Retrieval", which was selected as the "Best Information Science Book of the Year" by the American Society for Information Science (ASIS). That work stated that the Philosophy of Language had the best theory for understanding meaning in language, and within the Philosophy of Language, the work of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was found to be most perceptive. The success of that book provided an incentive to look more deeply into Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, and how it can help us to understand how to represent the intellectual content of information. This is what the current title does, and by using this theory it creates a firm foundation for future Information Retrieval research. The work consists of four related parts. Firstly, a brief overview of Wittgenstein's philosophy of language and its relevance to information systems. Secondly, a detailed explanation of Wittgenstein's late philosophy of language and mind. Thirdly, an extended discussion of the relevance of his philosophy to understanding some of the problems inherent in information systems, especially those systems which rely on retrieval based on some representation of the intellectual content of that information. And, fourthly, a series of detailed footnotes which cite the sources of the numerous quotations and provide some discussion of the related issues that the text inspires.

0.018689185 = product of:
  0.056067556 = sum of:
    0.056067556 = product of:
      0.11213511 = sum of:
        0.11213511 = weight(_text_:firm in 3587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11213511 = score(doc=3587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33933386 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.33045658 = fieldWeight in 3587, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4773793 = idf(docFreq=67, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A fascinating, research-based look at the impact of social media on businesses and consumers around the world, and what's in store for the future Social Media. You've heard the term, even if you don't use the tools. But just how big has social media become? Social media has officially surpassed pornography as the top activity on the Internet. People would rather give up their e-mail than their social network. It is so powerful that it is causing a macro shift in the way we live and conduct business. Brands can now be strengthened or destroyed by the use of social media. Online networking sites are being used as giant, free focus groups. Advertising is less effective at influencing consumers than the opinions of their peers. If you aren't using social media in your business strategy, you are already behind your competition. * Explores how the concept of "Socialnomics" is changing the way businesses produce, market, and sell, eliminating inefficient marketing and middlemen, and making products easier and cheaper for consumers to obtain * Learn how successful businesses are connecting with consumers like never before via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media sites * A must-read for anyone wanting to learn about, and harness the power of social media, rather than be squashed by it * Author Erik Qualman is a former online marketer for several Top 100 brands and the current Global Vice President of Online Marketing for the world's largest private education firm Socialnomics is essential book for anyone who wants to understand the implications of social media, and how businesses can tap the power of social media to increase their sales, cut their marketing costs, and reach consumers directly.

0.017390732 = product of:
  0.052172195 = sum of:
    0.052172195 = product of:
      0.10434439 = sum of:
        0.10434439 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10434439 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22
22. 7.2000 19:05:41

0.017390732 = product of:
  0.052172195 = sum of:
    0.052172195 = product of:
      0.10434439 = sum of:
        0.10434439 = weight(_text_:22 in 4363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10434439 = score(doc=4363,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4363, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bericht über die 'Europäische Konferenz über Technologie der Informationsgesellschaft, 22.-24.11.1999, Helsinki'

Date

22. 1.2000 19:26:00

0.017390732 = product of:
  0.052172195 = sum of:
    0.052172195 = product of:
      0.10434439 = sum of:
        0.10434439 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10434439 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22

0.017390732 = product of:
  0.052172195 = sum of:
    0.052172195 = product of:
      0.10434439 = sum of:
        0.10434439 = weight(_text_:22 in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10434439 = score(doc=4840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:13:11

0.017390732 = product of:
  0.052172195 = sum of:
    0.052172195 = product of:
      0.10434439 = sum of:
        0.10434439 = weight(_text_:22 in 5647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10434439 = score(doc=5647,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891789 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04538139 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5647, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Erwiderung auf: Graham, L.R.: Do mathematical equations display social attributes? in: Mathematical intelligencer 22(2000) no.3, S.31-36

Source

Mathematical intelligencer. 23(2001) no.1, S.18-22