Search (2232 results, page 2 of 112)

0.075126514 = product of:
  0.15025303 = sum of:
    0.111588314 = weight(_text_:social in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111588314 = score(doc=3312,freq=94.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.60407835 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          9.69536 = tf(freq=94.0), with freq of:
            94.0 = termFreq=94.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
    0.038664706 = sum of:
      0.020912344 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020912344 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.09987592 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
      0.017752362 = weight(_text_:22 in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017752362 = score(doc=3312,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Classification

303.48/33 22

DDC

303.48/33 22

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.1, S.151-152 (R. Gazan): "Anyone who has ever struggled to describe social informatics to a skeptical colleague or a room full of students will appreciate this clear and well-organized introduction to the field. It is at once a literature review, a teaching guide, and an outreach manifesto for integrating the social aspects of information and communication technologies (ICTs) into system design, analysis, and research. The context of this book is of particular importance. Rob Kling founded social informatics as a research field, and led the creation of the Center for Social Informatics at Indiana University. Kling pinpoints 1996 as the year when his long-simmering ideas coalesced into social informatics, though in the Foreword, William H. Dutton argues that the birth date of the field was actually more than a decade earlier. Kling, Howard Rosenbaum, and Steve Sawyer worked on this book intermittently for years, but upon Kling's death in May 2003, Rosenbaum and Sawyer completed the work. Under the circumstances, the book could easily have become a festschrift or celebration of Kling's career, but the authors maintain tight focus on the findings and applicability of social informatics research throughout. While much of Kling's work is cited, and very little of it critiqued, overall there is a good balance and synthesis of diverse approaches to social informatics research. Creating a conceptual critical mass around an idea like social informatics is only the first phase in its evolution. The initial working definition of social informatics-"the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of ICTs that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts" (p. 6)-was developed at a seminal 1997 workshop, and background information about the workshop's participants and process is summarized in two brief appendices. The results of this workshop yielded a raft of empirical studies, and at this point in the development of social informatics, the authors' focus on applying and extending the results of these initial studies is particularly well-timed. The authors identify a disconnect between popular, professional, and scholarly discourse on how ICTs coevolve with organizations, institutions, and society, and they aim to bridge this gap by providing a "pointer to the practical value of the scholarship on organizational and societal effects of computerization" (p. 3).
The opening chapter provides a 10-page introduction to social informatics and identifies three high-level subdomains of the field: the normative, analytical, and critical orientations. Chapter 2 then narrows the focus to the social, technical, and institutional nature and consequences of ICTs, and provides a well-chosen review and analysis of social informatics research, mostly case studies of system implementations gone wrong. The recurring finding in these cases is that the social and institutional context of the system implementation was not sufficiently accounted for. In light of these concrete examples, the value and applicability of a social informatics perspective becomes clear. The chapters are organized exceptionally well, with bullet points and tables summarizing core ideas. One particularly good example of the organization of ideas is a table comparing designer-centric and social design views on the task of designing ICTs for workplaces (p. 42). Included are the different views of work, intended goals, design assumptions, and technological choices inherent in each design philosophy. Readers can immediately grasp how a social informatics perspective, as opposed to the more traditional designer-centric perspective, would result in significant differences in the design of workplace ICTs. The chapter titled, "Social Informatics for Designers, Developers, and Implementers of ICT Based Systems," provides an extremely focused introduction to the importance of social informatics for system builders, with more examples of large-scale system breakdowns resulting from failure to account for context, such as the 1988 destruction of a civilian passenger jet in the Persian Gulf by the USS Vincennes. However, many of the chapter subheadings have promising titles such as "ICTs Rarely Cause Social Transformations" (p. 28), and though the findings of several studies that reach this conclusion are reviewed, this section is but a page in length and no dissenting findings are mentioned; this seems insufficient support for such a substantial claim. Throughout the book, conclusions from different studies are effectively juxtaposed and summarized to create a sense of a cohesive body of social informatics research findings, which are expressed in a very accessible manner. At the same time, the findings are discussed in relation to their applicability to diverse audiences outside the social informatics field: system designers and developers, ICT policy analysts, teachers of technical curricula, and ICT professionals. Anticipating and addressing the concerns of such a diverse group of audiences outside the field of social informatics is an admirable but overly ambitious goal to achieve in a 153-page book (not counting the excellent glossary, references, and appendices). For example, the chapter on social informatics for ICT policy analysts includes approximately twenty pages of ICT policy history in the U.S. and Europe, which seems a luxury in such a small volume. Though it is unquestionably relevant material, it does not fit well with the rest of the book and might be more effective as a stand-alone chapter for an information policy course, perhaps used in tandem with the introduction.
In the authors' view, the primary means to more widespread acceptance of social informatics is to integrate it with the more traditionally technical curricula of ICT oriented students in computer science and related fields, and this is the focus of Chapter 5. Here the book delivers on its promise of providing a clear framework for both understanding and teaching social informatics. The goal is not simply to learn how to build systems, but to learn how to build systems that account for the context in which they are used. The authors prescribe field experience problem-driven learning techniques embedded in the needs of particular organizations, and a critical, reflexive orientation toward ICT design and construction. In a chapter endnote, the authors mention that a socia informatics perspective would also be useful to students in other fields such as communication and education, but that space limitations required a focus on computer science. Though an understandable choice, if the goal is to convince those outside the field of the value of a social informatics perspective, it would seem natural to include management or economics curricula as fertile ground to analyze some of the tangible effects of a failure to account for the social context of system implementations. Chapter 6 is something of an outreach manifesto, a treatise on communicating social informatics research to professional and research communities, and an explicit call for social informatics researchers "to shoulder the responsibility for communicating the core of social informatics . . . to ICT professionals and other research communities" (pp. 106-107). The authors are not shy about framing social informatics less as a research field and more as an up-and-coming competitor in the marketplace of ICT-oriented ideas; achieving more widespread acceptance of social informatics is presented almost as a sales and marketing challenge, the goal being "getting to yes" in the minds of ICT professionals. It is an effective presentation strategy, but one that comes with a cost.
Throughout the book, the authors portray social informatics research as being underutilized and misunderstood outside the field, and they should be commended for acknowledging and addressing these problems head-on. Yes, there is resistance from ICT professionals and faculty and students in technical disciplines, most of whom have not been trained to consider social and institutional issues as part of their work. However, this stance sometimes results in a defensive tone. Social informatics research is repeatedly described as "systematic," "rigorous," and "empirically anchored," as if in preemptive response to doubts about the seriousness of social informatics scholarship. Chapter titles such as "Perceptions of the Relevance of Social Informatics Research" and "Raising the Profile of Social Informatics Research" contribute to this impression. Nonscholarly observers are dismissed as "pundits," and students who lack a social informatics perspective have "typically naïve" conceptualizations (p. 100). The concluding chapter ends not with a powerful and memorable synthesis, but with a final plea: "Taking Social Informatics Seriously." The content of the book is strong enough to stand on its own, but the manner in which it is presented sometimes detracts from the message. The book's few weaknesses can be viewed simply as the price of attempting both to survey social informatics research findings and to articulate their importance for such a diverse set of audiences, in such a brief volume. The central tension of the book, and the field of social informatics as a whole, is that on the one hand the particular-use context of an ICT is of critical importance, but furthering a social informatics agenda requires that some context-independent findings and tools be made evident to those outside the field. Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics is an important and worthwhile contribution toward reconciling this tension, and translating social informatics research findings into better real-world systems."

0.07467687 = product of:
  0.14935374 = sum of:
    0.12738632 = weight(_text_:social in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738632 = score(doc=3663,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.68960017 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3663, 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=3663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This is the era of social networking, collective intelligence, participation, collaborative creation, and borderless distribution. Every day we are bombarded with more publicity about collaborative environments, news feeds, blogs, wikis, podcasting, webcasting, folksonomies, social bookmarking, social citations, collaborative filtering, recommender systems, media sharing, massive multiplayer online games, virtual worlds, and mash-ups. This sort of anarchic environment appeals to the digital natives, but which of these so-called 'Web 2.0' technologies are going to have a real business impact? This paper addresses the impact that issues such as quality control, security, privacy and bandwidth may have on the implementation of social networking in hide-bound, large organizations.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:24:22

0.07330595 = product of:
  0.1466119 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=6046,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
    0.08964301 = product of:
      0.17928602 = sum of:
        0.17928602 = weight(_text_:aspects in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17928602 = score(doc=6046,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.8562577 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Draws attention to the efforts to define the terms 'concept' and 'term' and suggests a schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' under eight headings: 0. Concept; 1. Theoretical aspects; 2. Learning theory and Psychological aspects; 3. Origin, evolution, formation, construction; 4. Semantic aspects; 5.Terms and Terminology; 6. Usage and discipline-specific applications; and 7. Concepts and ISAR systems. The schedule also includes about 150 aspects/isolate terms related to 'concept' along with the name of the authors who have used them. The schedule is intended to help in identifying the various aspects of a concept with the help of the terms used for them. These aspects may guide to some extent, in dissecting and seeing the social science concepts from various point of views

0.06921949 = product of:
  0.13843898 = sum of:
    0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119609766 = score(doc=3387,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

Theme

Social tagging

0.06832148 = product of:
  0.13664296 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=4535,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
    0.036968153 = product of:
      0.073936306 = sum of:
        0.073936306 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073936306 = score(doc=4535,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.35311472 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper analyses and discusses some aspects concerning the historical and social context of information science and information institutions. The starting point is a speech on the history of the librarian delivered in 1934 by the Spanish philosopher, José Ortega y Gasset. On the one hand Ortega y Gasset makes a brief analysis of the social need for books and the tasks of librarians from a historical point of view. In this aspect he is related to the classical way of studying libraries in the context of the history of civilisation and to the paradigm of the thirties which viewed the library as a social institution. In the other hand Ortega y Gasset is aware of new phenomena in the changing world of knowledge. From this starting point the article analyses how historical changes in this century may have influenced information science (and the forerunners library science and documentation) with regard to changing conceptions of the structure, foci and content of the dicipline. The paradigms and frameworks anaylsed include: a pre-war paradigm viewing the library as a social institution; the physical paradigm; the cognitive view; and alternative perspectives in the nineties representing a new tendency towards an integration of the social dimension of the discipline, based on, among other views, sociology of science, hermeneutics and semiotics. Among the alternative views in the nineties domain analysis gives the most promising demonstration of a historically and sociologically integrated perspective

0.0679526 = product of:
  0.1359052 = sum of:
    0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11393778 = score(doc=2889,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Als dynamische und einfache Form der Auszeichnung von Ressourcen kann sich Tagging im E-Learning positiv auf Partizipation, soziale Navigation und das Verständnis der Lernenden auswirken. Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet verschiedene Möglichkeiten des Einsatzes von Social Tagging in Lehrportalen und E-LearningKursen. Hierzu werden zunächst drei konkrete Anwendungsfälle dargestellt. Anschließend werden aus den Anwendungsfällen gewonnene Erkenntnisse für Lehr-/Lernszenarien zusammengefasst.

Date

21. 6.2009 12:22:44

Footnote

Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.

Source

Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a

Theme

Social tagging

0.067659706 = product of:
  0.13531941 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=5779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
    0.03765845 = product of:
      0.0753169 = sum of:
        0.0753169 = weight(_text_:22 in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0753169 = score(doc=5779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

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

0.06514625 = product of:
  0.1302925 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 6123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=6123,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 6123, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6123)
    0.08425468 = sum of:
      0.059149045 = weight(_text_:aspects in 6123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059149045 = score(doc=6123,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.28249177 = fieldWeight in 6123, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6123)
      0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 6123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025105633 = score(doc=6123,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 6123, 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=6123)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22.10.2006 10:22:33

LCSH

World Wide Web / Social aspects

Subject

World Wide Web / Social aspects

0.06514625 = product of:
  0.1302925 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=2658,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
    0.08425468 = sum of:
      0.059149045 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059149045 = score(doc=2658,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.28249177 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
      0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025105633 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2658, 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=2658)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The wide acceptance of social networking tools in online environments is prompting scientists to engage in metadata creation in not only for organizing their own digital records, but also for contributing to data and journal repositories. Understanding the behaviors and practices of these communities can help us create more effective metadata structures within our information systems. This point is underscored by information science researchers who have emphasized the need to examine how certain communities interact with, search for, or organize information (Palmer 2001). By examining scientists, information professionals can be more informed in how to create better collections, services, and systems. As library and repository collections become more diverse and personalized, the organization and ingest techniques/applications behind those systems also should be based on observations of how actual user communities work. One area that is relevant to the practice of scientists and metadata is personal information management (PIM). The study of personal Information management typically focuses on finding (a relative of retrieval), refinding, maintenance, and organization. Metadata is at the core of these activities, although current research seems to focus more on task completion, rather than the underlying metadata structures and arrangements. Most PIM studies and writings have focused on tool development and finding (Jones 2007), but have rarely look closely at the organizational/metadata practices of individuals. As scientific communities, like evolutionary biology, turn more to cyberinfrastructures for sharing and collaborating with each other, it is important for information professionals to understand the more personal aspects of metadata generation and organization. Recent studies done by the Dryad repository69 team have looked at different aspects of data sharing and reuse in the evolutionary biology community. These studies have prompted questions about metadatageneration by scientists, their perceptions of the process, and the link between their metadata and the structures imposed in information systems. This poster will report on a study examining how evolutionary biologists create and use personal metadata to organize their research data. Using an ethnographic interview technique, participants are being interviewed about their current and previous data organization styles and techniques. This information about metadata and information organization can be used to inform new workflow and organization models for knowledge organization and metadata creation practices in developments for repositories, libraries, and cyberinfrastructures.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.06465994 = product of:
  0.12931988 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=91,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
    0.0804894 = sum of:
      0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273703 = score(doc=91,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.017752362 = weight(_text_:22 in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017752362 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Classification

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

DDC

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.1, S.150-151 (L. Westbrook): "The purpose of this volume is to bring together various analyses by international scholars of the social and cultural impact of information technology on individuals and societies (preface, n.p.). It grew from the First International Conference on Human Perspectives in the Internet Society held in Cadiz, Spain, in 2004. The editors and contributors have addressed an impressive array of significant issues with rigorous research and insightful analysis although the resulting volume does suffer from the usual unevenness in depth and content that affects books based on conference proceedings. Although the $256 price is prohibitive for many individual scholars, the effort to obtain a library edition for perusal regarding particular areas of interest is likely to prove worthwhile. Unlike many international conferences that are able to attract scholars from only a handful of nations, this genuinely diverse conference included research conducted in Australia, Beijing, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, England, Fiji, Germany, Greece, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, Scotland, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United States. The expense of a conference format and governmental travel restrictions may have precluded greater inclusion of the work being done to develop information technology for use in nonindustrialized nations in support of economic, social justice, and political movements. Although the cultural variants among these nations preclude direct cross-cultural comparisons, many papers carefully provide sufficient background information to make basic conceptual transfers possible. A great strength of the work is the unusual combination of academic disciplines that contributes substantially to the depth of many individual papers, particularly when they are read within the larger context of the entire volume. Although complete professional affiliations are not universally available, the authors who did name their affiliation come from widely divergent disciplines including accounting, business administration, architecture, business computing, communication, computing, economics, educational technology, environmental management, experimental psychology, gender research in computer science, geography, human work sciences, humanistic informatics, industrial engineering, information management, informatics in transport and telecommunications, information science, information technology, management, mathematics, organizational behavior, pedagogy, psychology, telemedicine, and women's education. This is all to the good, but the lack of representation from departments of women's studies, gender studies, and library studies certainly limits the breadth and depth of the perspectives provided.
The volume is organized into 13 sections, each of which contains between two and eight conference papers. As with most conferences, the papers do not cover the issues in each section with equal weight or depth but the editors have grouped papers into reasonable patterns. Section 1 covers "understanding online behavior" with eight papers on problems such as e-learning attitudes, the neuropsychology of HCI, Japanese blogger motivation, and the dividing line between computer addiction and high engagement. Sections 2 (personality and computer attitudes), 3 (cyber interactions), and 4 (new interaction methods) each contain only two papers on topics such as helmet-mounted displays, online energy audits, and the use of ICT in family life. Sections 6, 7, and 8 focus on gender issues with papers on career development, the computer literacy of Malaysian women, mentoring, gaming, and faculty job satisfaction. Sections 9 and 10 move to a broader examination of cyber society and its diversity concerns with papers on cultural identity, virtual architecture, economic growth's impact on culture, and Iranian development impediments. Section 11's two articles on advertising might well have been merged with those of section 13's ebusiness. Section 12 addressed education with papers on topics such as computer-assisted homework, assessment, and Web-based learning. It would have been useful to introduce each section with a brief definition of the theme, summaries of the major contributions of the authors, and analyses of the gaps that might be addressed in future conferences. Despite the aforementioned concerns, this volume does provide a uniquely rich array of technological analyses embedded in social context. An examination of recent works in related areas finds nothing that is this complex culturally or that has such diversity of disciplines. Cultural Production in a Digital Age (Klinenberg, 2005), Perspectives and Policies on ICT in Society (Berleur & Avgerou, 2005), and Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Information Technology (Brennan & Johnson, 2004) address various aspects of the society/Internet intersection but this volume is unique in its coverage of psychology, gender, and culture issues in cyberspace. The lip service often given to global concerns and the value of interdisciplinary analysis of intransigent social problems seldom develop into a genuine willingness to listen to unfamiliar research paradigms. Academic silos and cultural islands need conferences like this one-willing to take on the risk of examining the large questions in an intellectually open space. Editorial and methodological concerns notwithstanding, this volume merits review and, where appropriate, careful consideration across disciplines."

LCSH

Information technology / Psychological aspects / Congresses
Information technology / Social aspects / Congresses
Information technology / Economic aspects / Congresses
Internet / Social aspects / Congresses

Subject

Information technology / Psychological aspects / Congresses
Information technology / Social aspects / Congresses
Information technology / Economic aspects / Congresses
Internet / Social aspects / Congresses

0.06400875 = product of:
  0.1280175 = sum of:
    0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918827 = score(doc=4460,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.06290762 = product of:
  0.12581524 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=1896,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=1896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand the information phenomenon through the means of informational practice - the way of acting that gives identity to a group - in a social field and knowledge domain. Design/methodology/approach - By relating Pierre Bourdieu's sociology of culture to the domain analysis approach of Birger Hjørland, the intention was to achieve a comprehensive interpretation of the structure which generates the discourse communities and, also, of the social structure from which they are derived. All of these form the conditions for understanding the efforts, objectives and interests of the actors in the social field that causes them to develop determined informational practices. The field of architecture was elected for analysis. Findings - The conclusions show that both the products and subjects of a domain of knowledge, inserted in social fields, are expressions of their informational practice. Research limitations/implications - The authors believe the theoretical model based on Bourdieu and Hjørland's concepts, here built to analyze the architecture domain, may be used to analyze other domains. Originality/value - Domain analysis is employed as an approach to the study of the information aspects but here supported by the sociological concepts of Bourdieu. Thus, it is possible to understand what, how and why the informational practices are constituted inside a domain of knowledge, and, fundamentally, interpret the historical, cultural, and social dimensions that influence the construction of information.

0.06266099 = product of:
  0.12532198 = sum of:
    0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11276917 = score(doc=2657,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Theme

Social tagging

0.06032023 = product of:
  0.12064046 = sum of:
    0.09867303 = weight(_text_:social in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09867303 = score(doc=4184,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.53416204 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4184, 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=4184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Das Medium Internet ist im Wandel, und mit ihm ändern sich seine Publikations- und Rezeptionsbedingungen. Welche Chancen bieten die momentan parallel diskutierten Zukunftsentwürfe von Social Web und Semantic Web? Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage beschäftigt sich der Beitrag mit den Grundlagen beider Modelle unter den Aspekten Anwendungsbezug und Technologie, beleuchtet darüber hinaus jedoch auch deren Unzulänglichkeiten sowie den Mehrwert einer mediengerechten Kombination. Am Beispiel des grammatischen Online-Informationssystems grammis wird eine Strategie zur integrativen Nutzung der jeweiligen Stärken skizziert.

Date

22. 1.2011 10:38:28

Source

Kommunikation, Partizipation und Wirkungen im Social Web, Band 1. Hrsg.: A. Zerfaß u.a

0.0579727 = product of:
  0.1159454 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=145,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this article, the author examines an enterprise resource planning (ERP) adoption process in a particular case setting to explore the knowledge management challenges encountered, specifically challenges related to the sharing and integration of knowledge, and the ways that social capital is used to overcome these challenges. More specifically, the author relates the different sources and effects of social capital to the different implementation phases, with their differing knowledge management challenges. By doing so, he highlights the relative importance of the bridging and bonding aspects of social capital that vary during different phases because of the different types of knowledge that become more or less important over the lifecycle of the project - embrained, embodied, encultured, embedded, and encoded.

0.0579727 = product of:
  0.1159454 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=5622,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=5622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses supportive neurological and social evidence for 'collective consciousness', here understood as a shared sense of being together with others in a single or unified experience. Mirror neurons in the premotor and posterior parietal cortices respond to the intentions as well as the actions of other individuals. There are also mirror neurons in the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortices which have been implicated in empathy. Many authors have considered the likely role of such mirror systems in the development of uniquely human aspects of sociality including language. Though not without criticism, Menant has made the case that mirror-neuron assisted exchanges aided the original advent of self-consciousness and intersubjectivity. Combining these ideas with social mirror theory it is not difficult to imagine the creation of similar dynamical patterns in the emotional and even cognitive neuronal activity of individuals in human groups, creating a feeling in which the participating members experience a unified sense of consciousness. Such instances pose a kind of 'binding problem' in which participating individuals exhibit a degree of 'entanglement'.

0.055106886 = product of:
  0.11021377 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 6884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=6884,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 6884, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6884)
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 6884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=6884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 6884, 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=6884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the aftermath of the publication in 1996 of the famous spoof article by the New York University physicist Alan Sokal many scientists and mathematicians have considered the thesis of social constructivists-those specialists in science studies who maintain that science is shaped by social and cultural factors-as discredited. Sokal's article was, indeed, very clever, and he was correct in ridiculing the views of the most extreme social constructivists. The basic issue of the controversy remains, however, unresolved. To what extent are science and mathematics affected by the society in which they are developed? In this article I will maintain that even the mathematical equations used by outstanding physicists sometimes display attributes of their social environment. In a book I published in 1998 I argued that Russia was a particularly appropriate environment in which to test the social constructivist hypothesis. In the twentieth century Russia has had a large scientific establishment in a social, economic, political, and philosophical environment quite different from that of leading Western countries. If environmental factors affect science, the effects of those factors should show up in Russia. I concluded that these effects do indeed manifest themselves in Russian science, but that, perhaps surprisingly, Russian science reveals both the strengths and the weaknesses of the social constructivist hypothesis. An example of the weakness of the social constructivist thesis can be found in the overthrow of Lysenkoism biology in 1966, when Soviet biologists embraced the same biological principles as Western biologists after decades of rejecting these principles. This tardy but eventually successful worldwide agreement illustrated the universalism of much of science when open debate is permitted, and the existence of an objective biological world studied by biologists everywhere. The rejection of Lysenkoism showed that reality in nature does matter

Source

Mathematical intelligencer. 22(2000) no.3, S.31-36

0.05485584 = product of:
  0.10971168 = sum of:
    0.035240363 = weight(_text_:social in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035240363 = score(doc=2392,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.19077215 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
    0.07447132 = sum of:
      0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052280862 = score(doc=2392,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
      0.022190453 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022190453 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

DDC

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

Footnote

Part III, "Privacy and Information Control," has four articles and three discussion cases beginning with an 1890 article from the Harvard Law Review, "The Right to Privacy," written by Samuel A Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. Moore then includes an article debating whether people own their genes, an article on caller I.D., and an article on computer surveillance. While all four articles pose some very interesting questions, Margaret Everett's article "The Social Life of Genes: Privacy, Property, and the New Genetics" is incredible. She does a great job of demonstrating how advances in genetics have led to increased concerns over ownership and privacy of genetic codes. For instance, if someone's genetic code predisposes them to a deadly disease, should insurance companies have access to that information? Part IV, "Freedom of Speech and Information Control," has three articles and two discussion cases that examine speech and photography issues. Moore begins this section with Kent Greenawalt's "Rationales for Freedom of Speech," which looks at a number of arguments favoring free speech. Then the notion of free speech is carried over into the digital world in "Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society" by Jack M. Balkin. At 59 pages, this is the work's longest article and demonstrates how complex the digital environment has made freedom of speech issues. Finally, Part V, "Governmental and Societal Control of Information," contains three articles and three discussion cases which provide an excellent view into the conflict between security and privacy. For instance, the first article, "Carnivore, the FBI's E-mail Surveillance System: Devouring Criminals, Not Privacy" by Griffin S. Durham, examines the FBI's e-mail surveillance program called Carnivore. Durham does an excellent job of demonstrating that Carnivore is a necessary and legitimate system used in limited circumstances and with a court order. Librarians will find the final article in the book, National Security at What Price? A Look into Civil Liberty Concerns in the Information Age under the USA Patriot Act by Jacob R. Lilly, of particular interest. In this article, Lilly uses historical examples of events that sacrificed civil liberties for national security such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the McCarthyism of the Cold War era to examine the PATRIOT Act.

LCSH

Communication / Moral and ethical aspects
Information technology / Social aspects

Subject

Communication / Moral and ethical aspects
Information technology / Social aspects

0.05376228 = product of:
  0.10752456 = sum of:
    0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08138413 = score(doc=2383,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The impact of published academic research in the sciences and social sciences, when measured, is commonly estimated by counting citations from journal articles. The Web has now introduced new potential sources of quantitative data online that could be used to measure aspects of research impact. In this article we assess the extent to which citations from online syllabuses could be a valuable source of evidence about the educational utility of research. An analysis of online syllabus citations to 70,700 articles published in 2003 in the journals of 12 subjects indicates that online syllabus citations were sufficiently numerous to be a useful impact indictor in some social sciences, including political science and information and library science, but not in others, nor in any sciences. This result was consistent with current social science research having, in general, more educational value than current science research. Moreover, articles frequently cited in online syllabuses were not necessarily highly cited by other articles. Hence it seems that online syllabus citations provide a valuable additional source of evidence about the impact of journals, scholars, and research articles in some social sciences.

0.053466 = product of:
  0.106932 = sum of:
    0.06510731 = weight(_text_:social in 142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06510731 = score(doc=142,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 142, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=142)
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=142,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 142, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

LCSH

Information technology / Social aspects
Internet / Social aspects

Subject

Information technology / Social aspects
Internet / Social aspects