Search (257 results, page 1 of 13)

0.086995125 = product of:
  0.17399025 = sum of:
    0.029000679 = weight(_text_:information in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029000679 = score(doc=43,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37559175 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.108150855 = weight(_text_:united in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108150855 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

More than 5000 publications related to library user instruction and information literacy have been published and reviewed in the past thirty years. New developments in education and technology during the last two decades have affected user instruction and have led to the emergence of information literacy. Based on needs related to the rapid development of information technology and the evolving information society, librarians have begun teaching information skills to all types of users to ensure that they gain information fluency so they can become productive and effective information users both in the education environment and in the work environment. The number of publications related to user instruction and information literacy, like the field itself, show phenomenal growth during the past three decades as demonstrated by the fact that in 1973 twenty-eight publications were reviewed, and in 2002 more than 300 publications dealing with the topic of information literacy will be issued. It is noteworthy that in the last decade there has been a tremendous growth in publications related to information literacy globally. During the 1970s, publications indicate that user instruction activities were of concern primarily to librarians in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. At the present time, publications indicate a major concern with information literacy not only in the countries mentioned above but also in China, Germany, Mexico, Scandinavia, Singapore, South Africa, South America, Spain, and others. On an annual hasis, the majority of the publications have addressed information literacy in academic libraries (60 percent) followed by publications related to information literacy instruction in school media centers (20 percent).

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Teaching and assessing information skills in the twenty-first century

0.08348079 = product of:
  0.25044236 = sum of:
    0.036314595 = weight(_text_:information in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036314595 = score(doc=351,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.47031528 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
    0.21412776 = weight(_text_:united in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21412776 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.86777 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 28(1993), S.361-390

0.058202744 = product of:
  0.17460823 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=4461,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
    0.15064682 = weight(_text_:networks in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15064682 = score(doc=4461,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.7241182 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The idea that classification has more to offer than a scheme for shelf arrangement is not new. This collection of articles attests to the idea that classification has an important role to play as technology changes the way information is stored and retrieved from libraries and information networks.

Footnote

Bibliography presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"

0.0387742 = product of:
  0.1163226 = sum of:
    0.029346623 = weight(_text_:information in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029346623 = score(doc=1111,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
    0.08697598 = weight(_text_:networks in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08697598 = score(doc=1111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.4180698 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

State of the art review of the application of information technology in teacher education, teaching and education in the period 1991 to 1993. Notes that as schools move away from the information accumulation model of education to the learning by doing model, the use of information technology in education will become increasingly considered an essential part of school reform. Virtually all US schools use microcomputers, most use CD-ROM, about half have local area networks development

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information Inc.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 29(1994), S.277-302

0.033181652 = product of:
  0.09954495 = sum of:
    0.02344097 = weight(_text_:information in 4097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02344097 = score(doc=4097,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 4097, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4097)
    0.07610398 = weight(_text_:networks in 4097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07610398 = score(doc=4097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 4097, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4097)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Reviews the literature of the Internet and WWW, since 1990, covering 446 references on the Internet and library and information services with particular reference to issues such as: academic libraries and scholarly research; collection development and cooperation; community colleges and networks; electronic publishing; document delivery and interloans; global and international networking; government information; Internet training; legal, ethical and security issues; OPACs; privatization and commercialization; public libraries; reference services; school libraries; special libraries; standards and protocols; and women, minorities, disabled and equality

Imprint

Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Series

Graduate School of Library and Information Science: occasional papers; no.202

0.030309785 = product of:
  0.09092935 = sum of:
    0.014825371 = weight(_text_:information in 5347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014825371 = score(doc=5347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5347)
    0.07610398 = weight(_text_:networks in 5347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07610398 = score(doc=5347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 5347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5347)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Reference question referral may be as simple as a telephone call by the librarian to another library to obtain the answer to the patron's inquiry while the patron waits. It may also be a formal arrangement for the referral of questions, with specific goals and objectives, protocols, and procedures. Hogan's annotated bibliography of articles about reference question referral covers 1983 to 1994. Included is information on defining cooperative reference and the referred reference question, establishing networks and policies, a historical view of successes and failures, managing and avaluating cooperative systems, and describing methods of transferring information. Academic, public, and government libraries are discussed

0.029725473 = product of:
  0.08917642 = sum of:
    0.041502398 = weight(_text_:information in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041502398 = score(doc=4368,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

Theme

Information

0.027186861 = product of:
  0.08156058 = sum of:
    0.033886563 = weight(_text_:information in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033886563 = score(doc=335,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43886948 = fieldWeight in 335, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=335)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.41-77

0.023878481 = product of:
  0.07163544 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.3-42

0.023878481 = product of:
  0.07163544 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.xxx-xxx

0.023878481 = product of:
  0.07163544 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.023878481 = product of:
  0.07163544 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.109-145

0.023878481 = product of:
  0.07163544 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.79-108

0.02089367 = product of:
  0.06268101 = sum of:
    0.020966241 = weight(_text_:information in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020966241 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
    0.04171477 = product of:
      0.08342954 = sum of:
        0.08342954 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08342954 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.367-430

0.01985753 = product of:
  0.059572585 = sum of:
    0.026956595 = weight(_text_:information in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026956595 = score(doc=5079,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.03261599 = weight(_text_:networks in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261599 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.15677617 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411

Theme

Information

0.019450821 = product of:
  0.058352463 = sum of:
    0.020300474 = weight(_text_:information in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020300474 = score(doc=4285,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2629142 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
    0.03805199 = weight(_text_:networks in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03805199 = score(doc=4285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.18290554 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The introduction and growth of the World Wide Web (WWW, or Web) have resulted in a profound change in the way individuals and organizations access information. In terms of volume, nature, and accessibility, the characteristics of electronic information are significantly different from those of even five or six years ago. Control of, and access to, this flood of information rely heavily an automated techniques for indexing and retrieval. According to Gudivada, Raghavan, Grosky, and Kasanagottu (1997, p. 58), "The ability to search and retrieve information from the Web efficiently and effectively is an enabling technology for realizing its full potential." Almost 93 percent of those surveyed consider the Web an "indispensable" Internet technology, second only to e-mail (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). Although there are other ways of locating information an the Web (browsing or following directory structures), 85 percent of users identify Web pages by means of a search engine (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). A more recent study conducted by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society confirms the finding that searching for information is second only to e-mail as an Internet activity (Nie & Ebring, 2000, online). In fact, Nie and Ebring conclude, "... the Internet today is a giant public library with a decidedly commercial tilt. The most widespread use of the Internet today is as an information search utility for products, travel, hobbies, and general information. Virtually all users interviewed responded that they engaged in one or more of these information gathering activities."
Techniques for automated indexing and information retrieval (IR) have been developed, tested, and refined over the past 40 years, and are well documented (see, for example, Agosti & Smeaton, 1996; BaezaYates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999a; Frakes & Baeza-Yates, 1992; Korfhage, 1997; Salton, 1989; Witten, Moffat, & Bell, 1999). With the introduction of the Web, and the capability to index and retrieve via search engines, these techniques have been extended to a new environment. They have been adopted, altered, and in some Gases extended to include new methods. "In short, search engines are indispensable for searching the Web, they employ a variety of relatively advanced IR techniques, and there are some peculiar aspects of search engines that make searching the Web different than more conventional information retrieval" (Gordon & Pathak, 1999, p. 145). The environment for information retrieval an the World Wide Web differs from that of "conventional" information retrieval in a number of fundamental ways. The collection is very large and changes continuously, with pages being added, deleted, and altered. Wide variability between the size, structure, focus, quality, and usefulness of documents makes Web documents much more heterogeneous than a typical electronic document collection. The wide variety of document types includes images, video, audio, and scripts, as well as many different document languages. Duplication of documents and sites is common. Documents are interconnected through networks of hyperlinks. Because of the size and dynamic nature of the Web, preprocessing all documents requires considerable resources and is often not feasible, certainly not an the frequent basis required to ensure currency. Query length is usually much shorter than in other environments-only a few words-and user behavior differs from that in other environments. These differences make the Web a novel environment for information retrieval (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999b; Bharat & Henzinger, 1998; Huang, 2000).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.91-126

0.019241191 = product of:
  0.057723574 = sum of:
    0.033886563 = weight(_text_:information in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033886563 = score(doc=4226,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43886948 = fieldWeight in 4226, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4226)
    0.023837011 = product of:
      0.047674023 = sum of:
        0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674023 = score(doc=4226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

State of the art review of the historical development of information science as deemed to be covered by the particular interests of memebers of the American Society for Information Science, as defined as the representation, storage, transmission, selection, retrieval, filtering, and use of documents and messages. Arranges the references cited roughly according to the classification scheme used by Information Science Abstracts, and so uses the headings: background; information science; techniques and technology; information related behaviour; application areas; social aspects; education for information science; institutions; individuals; geographical areas; and conclusions

Date

13. 6.1996 19:22:20

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 30(1995), S.385-416

0.018578421 = product of:
  0.05573526 = sum of:
    0.025938997 = weight(_text_:information in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025938997 = score(doc=209,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 209, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=209)
    0.029796265 = product of:
      0.05959253 = sum of:
        0.05959253 = weight(_text_:22 in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05959253 = score(doc=209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 209, 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=209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This annotated bibliography lists materials dealing with information literacy - including instruction in the use of information resources, research, and computer skills related to retrieving, using, and evaluating information. This review, the 20th to be published in RSR, includes items in English published in 1993

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.4, S.81-

0.015607788 = product of:
  0.046823364 = sum of:
    0.014207373 = weight(_text_:information in 2462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014207373 = score(doc=2462,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.18400162 = fieldWeight in 2462, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2462)
    0.03261599 = weight(_text_:networks in 2462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261599 = score(doc=2462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.15677617 = fieldWeight in 2462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2462)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) was first introduced in Dumais, Furnas, Landauer, and Deerwester (1988) and Deerwester, Dumais, Furnas, Landauer, and Harshman (1990) as a technique for improving information retrieval. The key insight in LSA was to reduce the dimensionality of the information retrieval problem. Most approaches to retrieving information depend an a lexical match between words in the user's query and those in documents. Indeed, this lexical matching is the way that the popular Web and enterprise search engines work. Such systems are, however, far from ideal. We are all aware of the tremendous amount of irrelevant information that is retrieved when searching. We also fail to find much of the existing relevant material. LSA was designed to address these retrieval problems, using dimension reduction techniques. Fundamental characteristics of human word usage underlie these retrieval failures. People use a wide variety of words to describe the same object or concept (synonymy). Furnas, Landauer, Gomez, and Dumais (1987) showed that people generate the same keyword to describe well-known objects only 20 percent of the time. Poor agreement was also observed in studies of inter-indexer consistency (e.g., Chan, 1989; Tarr & Borko, 1974) in the generation of search terms (e.g., Fidel, 1985; Bates, 1986), and in the generation of hypertext links (Furner, Ellis, & Willett, 1999). Because searchers and authors often use different words, relevant materials are missed. Someone looking for documents an "human-computer interaction" will not find articles that use only the phrase "man-machine studies" or "human factors." People also use the same word to refer to different things (polysemy). Words like "saturn," "jaguar," or "chip" have several different meanings. A short query like "saturn" will thus return many irrelevant documents. The query "Saturn Gar" will return fewer irrelevant items, but it will miss some documents that use only the terms "Saturn automobile." In searching, there is a constant tension between being overly specific and missing relevant information, and being more general and returning irrelevant information.
A number of approaches have been developed in information retrieval to address the problems caused by the variability in word usage. Stemming is a popular technique used to normalize some kinds of surface-level variability by converting words to their morphological root. For example, the words "retrieve," "retrieval," "retrieved," and "retrieving" would all be converted to their root form, "retrieve." The root form is used for both document and query processing. Stemming sometimes helps retrieval, although not much (Harman, 1991; Hull, 1996). And, it does not address Gases where related words are not morphologically related (e.g., physician and doctor). Controlled vocabularies have also been used to limit variability by requiring that query and index terms belong to a pre-defined set of terms. Documents are indexed by a specified or authorized list of subject headings or index terms, called the controlled vocabulary. Library of Congress Subject Headings, Medical Subject Headings, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) keywords, and Yellow Pages headings are examples of controlled vocabularies. If searchers can find the right controlled vocabulary terms, they do not have to think of all the morphologically related or synonymous terms that authors might have used. However, assigning controlled vocabulary terms in a consistent and thorough manner is a time-consuming and usually manual process. A good deal of research has been published about the effectiveness of controlled vocabulary indexing compared to full text indexing (e.g., Bates, 1998; Lancaster, 1986; Svenonius, 1986). The combination of both full text and controlled vocabularies is often better than either alone, although the size of the advantage is variable (Lancaster, 1986; Markey, Atherton, & Newton, 1982; Srinivasan, 1996). Richer thesauri have also been used to provide synonyms, generalizations, and specializations of users' search terms (see Srinivasan, 1992, for a review). Controlled vocabularies and thesaurus entries can be generated either manually or by the automatic analysis of large collections of texts.
With the advent of large-scale collections of full text, statistical approaches are being used more and more to analyze the relationships among terms and documents. LSA takes this approach. LSA induces knowledge about the meanings of documents and words by analyzing large collections of texts. The approach simultaneously models the relationships among documents based an their constituent words, and the relationships between words based an their occurrence in documents. By using fewer dimensions for representation than there are unique words, LSA induces similarities among terms that are useful in solving the information retrieval problems described earlier. LSA is a fully automatic statistical approach to extracting relations among words by means of their contexts of use in documents, passages, or sentences. It makes no use of natural language processing techniques for analyzing morphological, syntactic, or semantic relations. Nor does it use humanly constructed resources like dictionaries, thesauri, lexical reference systems (e.g., WordNet), semantic networks, or other knowledge representations. Its only input is large amounts of texts. LSA is an unsupervised learning technique. It starts with a large collection of texts, builds a term-document matrix, and tries to uncover some similarity structures that are useful for information retrieval and related text-analysis problems. Several recent ARIST chapters have focused an text mining and discovery (Benoit, 2002; Solomon, 2002; Trybula, 2000). These chapters provide complementary coverage of the field of text analysis.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.189-230

0.014065161 = product of:
  0.042195484 = sum of:
    0.02009226 = weight(_text_:information in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02009226 = score(doc=1270,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
    0.022103224 = product of:
      0.044206448 = sum of:
        0.044206448 = weight(_text_:states in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044206448 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.1825188 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

Series

Library and information science