Search (6978 results, page 1 of 349)

0.20959115 = product of:
  0.31438673 = sum of:
    0.23452716 = weight(_text_:sociology in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23452716 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.76905465 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.079859555 = sum of:
      0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020501617 = score(doc=613,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059357934 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.15452126 = product of:
  0.23178187 = sum of:
    0.22290441 = product of:
      0.44580883 = sum of:
        0.17395894 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17395894 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37143064 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = 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)
        0.27184987 = weight(_text_:2c in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27184987 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.46432164 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    0.008877459 = product of:
      0.017754918 = sum of:
        0.017754918 = weight(_text_:of in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017754918 = score(doc=692,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

What is the difference between Piaget's constructivism and Papert's "constructionism"? Beyond the mere play on the words, I think the distinction holds, and that integrating both views can enrich our understanding of how people learn and grow. Piaget's constructivism offers a window into what children are interested in, and able to achieve, at different stages of their development. The theory describes how children's ways of doing and thinking evolve over time, and under which circumstance children are more likely to let go of-or hold onto- their currently held views. Piaget suggests that children have very good reasons not to abandon their worldviews just because someone else, be it an expert, tells them they're wrong. Papert's constructionism, in contrast, focuses more on the art of learning, or 'learning to learn', and on the significance of making things in learning. Papert is interested in how learners engage in a conversation with [their own or other people's] artifacts, and how these conversations boost self-directed learning, and ultimately facilitate the construction of new knowledge. He stresses the importance of tools, media, and context in human development. Integrating both perspectives illuminates the processes by which individuals come to make sense of their experience, gradually optimizing their interactions with the world.

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.

0.14304484 = product of:
  0.21456726 = sum of:
    0.20310651 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20310651 = score(doc=1961,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.666021 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=1961,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The international standard ISO 214:1976 defines an abstract as "an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document" (p. 1) that should "enable readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately to determine relevance" (p. 1). It also should be useful in computerized searching. The ISO standard suggests including the following elements: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Researchers have often challenged this structure and found that different disciplines and cultures prefer different information content. These claims are partially supported by the findings of our research into the structure of pharmacology, sociology, and Slovenian language and literature abstracts of papers published in international and Slovenian scientific periodicals. The three disciplines have different information content. Slovenian pharmacology abstracts differ in content from those in international periodicals while the differences between international and Slovenian abstracts are small in sociology. In the field of Slovenian language and literature, only domestic abstracts were studied. The identified differences can in part be attributed to the disciplines, but also to the different role of journals and papers in the professional society and to differences in perception of the role of abstracts. The findings raise questions about the structure of abstracts required by some publishers of international journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1420-1432

0.1360165 = product of:
  0.20402475 = sum of:
    0.19900289 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19900289 = score(doc=3986,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.6525645 = fieldWeight in 3986, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3986)
    0.0050218496 = product of:
      0.010043699 = sum of:
        0.010043699 = weight(_text_:of in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010043699 = score(doc=3986,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 3986, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

LCSH

Knowledge, Sociology of

Subject

Knowledge, Sociology of

0.117100105 = product of:
  0.17565015 = sum of:
    0.16583575 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16583575 = score(doc=2374,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.5438038 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
    0.009814401 = product of:
      0.019628802 = sum of:
        0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019628802 = score(doc=2374,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1963-1972

0.114013806 = product of:
  0.1710207 = sum of:
    0.1624852 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1624852 = score(doc=2676,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.53281677 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
    0.008535503 = product of:
      0.017071007 = sum of:
        0.017071007 = weight(_text_:of in 2676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017071007 = score(doc=2676,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 2676, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We investigated an approach to automatic discourse parsing of sociology dissertation abstracts as a sentence categorization task. Decision tree induction was used for the automatic categorization. Three models were developed. Model 1 made use of word tokens found in the sentences. Model 2 made use of both word tokens and sentence position in the abstract. In addition to the attributes used in Model 2, Model 3 also considered information regarding the presence of indicator words in surrounding sentences. Model 3 obtained the highest accuracy rate of 74.5 % when applied to a test sample, compared to 71.6% for Model 2 and 60.8% for Model 1. The results indicated that information about sentence position can substantially increase the accuracy of categorization, and indicator words in earlier sentences (before the sentence being processed) also contribute to the categorization accuracy.

Content

1. Introduction This paper reports our initial effort to develop an automatic method for parsing the discourse structure of sociology dissertation abstracts. This study is part of a broader study to develop a method for multi-document summarization. Accurate discourse parsing will make it easier to perform automatic multi-document summarization of dissertation abstracts. In a previous study, we determined that the macro-level structure of dissertation abstracts typically has five sections (Khoo et al., 2002). In this study, we treated discourse parsing as a text categorization problem - assigning each sentence in a dissertation abstract to one of the five predefined sections or categories. Decision tree induction, a machine-learning method, was applied to word tokens found in the abstracts to construct a decision tree model for the categorization purpose. Decision tree induction was selected primarily because decision tree models are easy to interpret and can be converted to rules that can be incorporated in other computer programs. A well-known decision-tree induction program, C5.0 (Quinlan, 1993), was used in this study.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.11334708 = product of:
  0.17002062 = sum of:
    0.16583575 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16583575 = score(doc=4321,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.5438038 = fieldWeight in 4321, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4321)
    0.0041848747 = product of:
      0.008369749 = sum of:
        0.008369749 = weight(_text_:of in 4321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008369749 = score(doc=4321,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.12216854 = fieldWeight in 4321, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

LCSH

Knowledge, Sociology of

Subject

Knowledge, Sociology of

0.10007422 = product of:
  0.15011132 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=4464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
    0.009395021 = product of:
      0.018790042 = sum of:
        0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018790042 = score(doc=4464,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain-specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways, producing special classifications and thesauri; research an indexing and retrieving specialities, empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.4, S.422-462

0.10007422 = product of:
  0.15011132 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=1725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 1725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1725)
    0.009395021 = product of:
      0.018790042 = sum of:
        0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 1725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018790042 = score(doc=1725,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1725, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article focuses on why academic writers in computer science and sociology sometimes supply the reader with more details of citees' names than they need to: Why do citers name citees when using the Footnote System, and why do citers include citees' first names when using the Harvard System? These questions were investigated as part of a qualitative, interview-based study of citation behavior. A number of motivations were advanced by informants, including the desire for stylistic elegance, for informality, to make the text accessible to less informed readers, to mark a close relationship between citer and citee, to alert readers to a little known citee, and to acknowledge seminal sources. In a number of cases, however, informants were unable to offer any motivation, reporting that their behavior had been unconscious or accidental. The study underlines B. Cronin's (1984, 2005) argument that citation is a private and subjective process, and shows that interview-based studies afford the analyst insights into writers' citing practices which alternative methodologies cannot.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.6, S.1007-1011

0.0996096 = product of:
  0.14941439 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 5038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=5038,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 5038, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5038)
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 5038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=5038,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5038, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5038)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

What theoretical framework can help in building, maintaining and evaluating networked knowledge organization resources? Specifically, what theoretical framework makes sense of the semantic prowess of ontologies and peer-to-peer systems, and by extension aids in their building, maintenance, and evaluation? I posit that a theoretical work that weds both formal and associative (structurel and interpretive) aspects of knowledge organization systems provides that framework. Here I lay out the terms and the intellectual constructs that serve as the foundation for investigative work into experientialist classification theory, a theoretical framework of embodied, infrastructural, and reified knowledge organization. I build an the interpretive work of scholars in information studies, cognitive semantics, sociology, and science studies. With the terms and the framework in place, I then outline classification theory's critiques of classificatory structures. In order to address these critiques with an experientialist approach an experientialist semantics is offered as a design commitment for an example: metadata in peer-to-peer network knowledge organization structures.

0.08677482 = product of:
  0.13016222 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=1896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
    0.012898651 = product of:
      0.025797302 = sum of:
        0.025797302 = weight(_text_:of in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025797302 = score(doc=1896,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.397-412

0.08654547 = product of:
  0.1298182 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=4535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
    0.012554625 = product of:
      0.02510925 = sum of:
        0.02510925 = weight(_text_:of in 4535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02510925 = score(doc=4535,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 4535, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.1, S.12-26

0.08630966 = product of:
  0.12946448 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=3095,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix - based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index - can be decomposed by indexers or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the field/subfield classification of Glänzel and Schubert (2003). The content-based schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal, whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix. By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary developments. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories, while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the sociology of science should be careful when using content-based classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb the evaluation locally.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.9, S.1823-1835

0.08528864 = product of:
  0.12793295 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=2588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=2588,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In human-computer interaction (HCI), a successful interaction sequence can take its own momentum and drift away from what the user has originally planned. However, this does not mean that planned actions play no important role in the overall performance. In this paper, the author tries to construct a line of argument to demonstrate that it is impossible to consider an action without an a priori plan, even according to the phenomenological position taken for granted by the situated action theory. Based on the phenomenological analysis of problematic situations and typification the author argues that, just like "situated-ness", "planned-ness" of an action should also be understood in the context of the situation. Successful plan can be developed and executed for familiar context. The first part of the paper treats information seeking behavior as a special type of social action and applies Alfred Schutz's phenomenology of sociology to understand the importance and necessity of plan. The second part reports results of a quasi-experiment focusing on plan deviation within an information seeking context. It was found that when the searcher's situation changed from problematic to non-problematic, the degree of plan deviation decreased significantly. These results support the argument proposed in the first part of the paper.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"

0.08528864 = product of:
  0.12793295 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=25,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.

0.08528864 = product of:
  0.12793295 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=522)
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=522,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 522, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a method for automatic construction of multidocument summaries of sets of research abstracts that may be retrieved by a digital library or search engine in response to a user query. Sociology dissertation abstracts were selected as the sample domain in this study. A variable-based framework was proposed for integrating and organizing research concepts and relationships as well as research methods and contextual relations extracted from different dissertation abstracts. Based on the framework, a new summarization method was developed, which parses the discourse structure of abstracts, extracts research concepts and relationships, integrates the information across different abstracts, and organizes and presents them in a Web-based interface. The focus of this article is on the user evaluation that was performed to assess the overall quality and usefulness of the summaries. Two types of variable-based summaries generated using the summarization method-with or without the use of a taxonomy-were compared against a sentence-based summary that lists only the research-objective sentences extracted from each abstract and another sentence-based summary generated using the MEAD system that extracts important sentences. The evaluation results indicate that the majority of sociological researchers (70%) and general users (64%) preferred the variable-based summaries generated with the use of the taxonomy.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1419-1435

0.0850096 = product of:
  0.12751439 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=2114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 2114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2114)
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 2114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=2114,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2114, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Walters and Wilder describe the literature of later-life migration, a multi-disciplinary topic, and evaluate its bibliographic coverage in seven disciplinary and five multi-disciplinary databases. Multiple database searches and reviews of the references of found items discovered over 500 papers published between January 1990 and December 2000. These were then read to determine if late-life migration was their central focus, and to select those which presented noteworthy findings, innovative approaches, or were covering topics unseen elsewhere, and also were understandable to a broad readership, and generally available. One hundred and fifty five journal articles met these criteria and are the focus of the study. The core journals of sociology, economics, and demography are not major contributors, but three gerontology journals are in the top five. The top two journals have broad coverage, but the others tend to concentrate on one of five themes. The top five journals account for 40 % of papers and the top twelve 70%. Of nine papers cited 30 or more times seven appeared in the top 12 contributing journals. The median article in the study was indexed by six of the twelve databases, and 12% were indexed by more than 7 databases. The correlation between citation and number of databases indexing a paper is very low. Social Sciences Citation Index will 73% coverage. Typical overlap in the 12 databases is about 45%.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.14, S.1305-1312

0.08375555 = product of:
  0.12563333 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=3886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 3886, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3886)
    0.008369749 = product of:
      0.016739499 = sum of:
        0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 3886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016739499 = score(doc=3886,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3886, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Will the emerging global information infrastructure (GII) create a revolution in communication equivalent to that wrought by Gutenberg, or will the result be simply the evolutionary adaptation of existing behavior and institutions to new media? Will the GII improve access to information for all? Will it replace libraries and publishers? How can computers and information systems be made easier to use? What are the trade-offs between tailoring information systems to user communities and standardizing them to interconnect with systems designed for other communities, cultures, and languages? This book takes a close look at these and other questions of technology, behavior, and policy surrounding the GII. Topics covered include the design and use of digital libraries; behavioral and institutional aspects of electronic publishing; the evolving role of libraries; the life cycle of creating, using, and seeking information; and the adoption and adaptation of information technologies. The book takes a human-centered perspective, focusing on how well the GII fits into the daily lives of the people it is supposed to benefit. Taking a unique holistic approach to information access, the book draws on research and practice in computer science, communications, library and information science, information policy, business, economics, law, political science, sociology, history, education, and archival and museum studies. It explores both domestic and international issues. The author's own empirical research is complemented by extensive literature reviews and analyses

0.082940534 = product of:
  0.12441079 = sum of:
    0.099501446 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099501446 = score(doc=3037,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.32628226 = fieldWeight in 3037, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3037)
    0.024909347 = sum of:
      0.0071019684 = weight(_text_:of in 3037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0071019684 = score(doc=3037,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 3037, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3037)
      0.01780738 = weight(_text_:22 in 3037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01780738 = score(doc=3037,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3037, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3037)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 7.2009 13:43:50

LCSH

Knowledge, Sociology of
Knowledge, Theory of

Subject

Knowledge, Sociology of
Knowledge, Theory of

0.08258697 = product of:
  0.123880446 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=337,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065