-
Brophy, J.; Bawden, D.: Is Google enough? : Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources (2005)
0.02
0.017743612 = product of:
0.053230833 = sum of:
0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053230833 = score(doc=648,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
0.051133685 = queryNorm
0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach - A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings - Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications - Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications - The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the "Google phenomenon". Originality/value - This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in-depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.
-
Bawden, D.: Google and the universe of knowledge (2008)
0.02
0.01616512 = product of:
0.04849536 = sum of:
0.04849536 = product of:
0.09699072 = sum of:
0.09699072 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09699072 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051133685 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, 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=844)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 7. 6.2008 16:22:20
-
Bawden, D.: ¬The shifting terminology's of information (2001)
0.01
0.010697406 = product of:
0.032092217 = sum of:
0.032092217 = product of:
0.064184435 = sum of:
0.064184435 = weight(_text_:management in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064184435 = score(doc=706,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.051133685 = queryNorm
0.37240356 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- At the heart of any discussion of the information sciences, at least when this discussion is held in the English language, lies the problem of the variant, and shifting, set of concepts and meanings of the terms 'library' and 'information'. The term 'information', in particular, has a variety of meanings in different contexts and communities of discourse, providing an excellent example of Wittgenstein's language game. This implies that any terminology built around this central concept is in danger of being constructed on 'shifting sands'. This article outlines, for the English language only, some of these diverse meanings of information, and their consequences for the terminology of the information sciences. It focuses on the variant relationships between information and related concepts, particularly data and knowledge. It also includes an account of the view information taken in the hard and soft methodologies of system science, as well as the new discipline of 'information physics'. From this, some remarks may be made on the changing meanings of the complex terms such as 'information technology' and 'information literacy', as well as those complex terms involving 'management', information management, knowledge management, document management etc. A similar, though shorter, treatment will de given to terminology around the 'library' concept, particularly in view of the change toward viewing a library as an organised virtual information space, rather than physical environment.
-
Bawden, D.: Organised complexity, meaning and understanding : an approach to a unified view of information for information science (2007)
0.01
0.005348703 = product of:
0.016046109 = sum of:
0.016046109 = product of:
0.032092217 = sum of:
0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032092217 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.051133685 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The paper seeks to outline an approach to a unified framework for understanding the concept of "information" in the physical, biological and human domains, and to see what links and interactions may be found between them. It also aims to re-examine the information science discipline, with a view to locating it in a larger context, so as to reflect on the possibility that information science may not only draw from these other disciplines, but that its insights may contribute to them. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of an extensive literature review and analysis, loosely based on the approaches of Stonier, Madden and Bates, and including analysis of both scientific and library/information literature. Findings - The paper identifies the concept of information as being identified with organised complexity in the physical domain, with meaning in context in the biological domain, and with Kvanvig's concept of understanding in the human domain. The linking thread is laws of emergent self-organised complexity, applicable in all domains. Argues that a unified perspective for the information sciences, based on Popperian ontology, may be derived, with the possibility of not merely drawing insights from physical and biological science, but also of contributing to them. Based on Hirst's educational philosophy, derives a definition for the information sciences around two poles: information science and library/information management.
