Search (121 results, page 1 of 7)

0.19745187 = product of:
  0.2961778 = sum of:
    0.07404445 = product of:
      0.22213335 = sum of:
        0.22213335 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22213335 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3952424 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.22213335 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22213335 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3952424 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046619706 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.16454324 = product of:
  0.24681485 = sum of:
    0.06170371 = product of:
      0.18511114 = sum of:
        0.18511114 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18511114 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3952424 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18511114 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18511114 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3952424 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046619706 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.031377364 = product of:
  0.09413209 = sum of:
    0.09413209 = product of:
      0.18826418 = sum of:
        0.18826418 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18826418 = score(doc=5713,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.73171544 = fieldWeight in 5713, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw on the philosophy of information, specifically the work of Luciano Floridi, to argue that digital civics must fully comprehend the implications of the digital environment, and consequently an informational ontology, to deliver to students an education that will prepare them for full participation as citizens in the infosphere. Design/methodology/approach Introducing this philosophy for use in education, the research discusses the ethical implications of ontological change in the digital age; informational organisms and their interconnectivity; and concepts of agency, both organic and artificial in digitally mediated civic interactions and civic education. Findings With the provision of a structural framework rooted in the philosophy of information, robust mechanisms for civics initiatives can be enacted. Originality/value The paper allows policy makers and practitioners to formulate healthy responses to digital age challenges in civics and civics education.

0.029234132 = product of:
  0.08770239 = sum of:
    0.08770239 = product of:
      0.17540479 = sum of:
        0.17540479 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17540479 = score(doc=5710,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.6817356 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss Luciano Floridi's 2019 book The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design, the latest instalment in his philosophy of information (PI) tetralogy, particularly with respect to its implications for library and information studies (LIS). Design/methodology/approach Nine scholars with research interests in philosophy and LIS read and responded to the book, raising critical and heuristic questions in the spirit of scholarly dialogue. Floridi responded to these questions. Findings Floridi's PI, including this latest publication, is of interest to LIS scholars, and much insight can be gained by exploring this connection. It seems also that LIS has the potential to contribute to PI's further development in some respects. Research limitations/implications Floridi's PI work is technical philosophy for which many LIS scholars do not have the training or patience to engage with, yet doing so is rewarding. This suggests a role for translational work between philosophy and LIS. Originality/value The book symposium format, not yet seen in LIS, provides forum for sustained, multifaceted and generative dialogue around ideas.

0.022187147 = product of:
  0.06656144 = sum of:
    0.06656144 = product of:
      0.13312288 = sum of:
        0.13312288 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13312288 = score(doc=185,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.5174009 = fieldWeight in 185, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Evaluation of information retrieval systems is a fundamental topic in Library and Information Science. The aim of this paper is to connect the system-oriented and the user-oriented approaches to relevant philosophical schools. By reviewing the related literature, it was found that the evaluation of information retrieval systems is successful if it benefits from both system-oriented and user-oriented approaches (composite). The system-oriented approach is rooted in Parmenides' philosophy of stability (immovable) which Plato accepts and attributes to the world of forms; the user-oriented approach is rooted in Heraclitus' flux philosophy (motion) which Plato defers and attributes to the tangible world. Thus, using Plato's theory is a comprehensive approach for recognizing the concept of relevance. The theoretical and philosophical foundations determine the type of research methods and techniques. Therefore, Plato's dialectical method is an appropriate composite method for evaluating information retrieval systems.

0.020567905 = product of:
  0.06170371 = sum of:
    0.06170371 = product of:
      0.18511114 = sum of:
        0.18511114 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18511114 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3952424 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.01848929 = product of:
  0.055467866 = sum of:
    0.055467866 = product of:
      0.11093573 = sum of:
        0.11093573 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11093573 = score(doc=5885,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.43116745 = fieldWeight in 5885, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5885)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Charles Peirce's classification of the sciences was designed shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. The classification has two main sources of inspiration: Comte's science classification and Kant's theoretical philosophy. Peirce's classification, like that of Comte, is hierarchically organised in that the more general an abstract sciences provide principles for the less general and more concrete sciences. However, Peirce includes and assigns a superordinate role to philosophical disciplines which analyse and provide logical, methodological and ontological principles for the specialised sciences, and which are based on everyday life experience. Moreover, Peirce recognises two main branches of specialised empirical science: the natural sciences, on the one hand, and the social sciences, the humanities and psychology on the other. While both branches share logical and methodological principles, they are based on different ontological principles in studying physical nature and the human mind and its products, respectively. Peirce's most basic philosophical discipline, phenomenology, transforms his early engagement with Kant. Peirce's classification of aesthetics, ethics and logic as normative sub-disciplines of philosophy relate to his philosophical pragmatism. Yet his more overarching division between theoretical (philosophical and specialised) sciences and practical sciences may be seen as problematic. Taking Peirce's historical account of scientific developments into consideration, however, I argue that his science classification and its emphasis on the interdependencies between the sciences could be seen as sustaining and supporting interdisciplinarity and interaction across fields of research, even across the divide between theoretical and practical sciences.

0.01848929 = product of:
  0.055467866 = sum of:
    0.055467866 = product of:
      0.11093573 = sum of:
        0.11093573 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11093573 = score(doc=1048,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.43116745 = fieldWeight in 1048, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper offers a novel interpretation of Hans Jonas' analysis of metabolism, the centrepiece of Jonas' philosophy of organism, in relation to recent controversies regarding the phenomenological dimension of life-mind continuity as understood within 'autopoietic' enactivism (AE). Jonas' philosophy of organism chiefly inspired AE's development of what we might call 'the phenomenological life-mind continuity thesis' (PLMCT), the claim that certain phenomenological features of human experience are central to a proper scientific understanding of both life and mind, and as such central features of all living organisms. After discussing the understanding of PLMCT within AE, and recent criticisms thereof, I develop a reading of Jonas' analysis of metabolism, in light of previous commentators, which emphasizes its systematicity and transcendental flavour. The central thought is that, for Jonas, the attribution of certain phenomenological features is a necessary precondition for our understanding of the possibility of metabolism, rather than being derivable from metabolism itself. I argue that my interpretation strengthens Jonas' contribution to AE's justification for ascribing certain phenomenological features to life across the board. However, it also emphasises the need to complement Jonas' analysis with an explanatory account of organic identity in order to vindicate these phenomenological ascriptions in a scientific context.

0.015688682 = product of:
  0.047066044 = sum of:
    0.047066044 = product of:
      0.09413209 = sum of:
        0.09413209 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09413209 = score(doc=5939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 5939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This conceptual article argues for the value of an approach to privacy in the digital information environment informed by Luciano Floridi's philosophy of information and information ethics. This approach involves achieving informational privacy, through the features of anonymity and obscurity, through an optimal balance of ontological frictions. This approach may be used to modify models for information behavior and for information literacy, giving them a fuller and more effective coverage of privacy issues in the infosphere. For information behavior, the Information Seeking and Communication Model and the Information Grounds conception are most appropriate for this purpose. For information literacy, the metaliteracy model, using a modification a privacy literacy framework, is most suitable.

0.015688682 = product of:
  0.047066044 = sum of:
    0.047066044 = product of:
      0.09413209 = sum of:
        0.09413209 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09413209 = score(doc=5984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 5984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of Dark Knowledge, an epistemology that acknowledges both alternative knowledge and ways of knowing which are cognizant of the moral and ethical positioning of each. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper that uses existing relevant literature to develop the work. The paper uses a four-stage literature search process and draws upon a range of disciplines, including philosophy, computer science and information management, to underpin the evolution of the concept. Findings As a conceptual paper, no empirical findings are presented. Instead, the paper presents an embryonic model of Dark Knowledge and identifies a number of characteristics, which may be used to explore the concept in more detail. Research limitations/implications There is a clear need to develop a body of empirical work, adding to the theoretical perspectives presented in this paper. It is anticipated that this paper will provide one of the cornerstones for future studies in this area. Originality/value The paper makes an original contribution to the study of information behaviours, practices and epistemology.

0.015688682 = product of:
  0.047066044 = sum of:
    0.047066044 = product of:
      0.09413209 = sum of:
        0.09413209 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09413209 = score(doc=5994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 5994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We examine the way in which religion is managed in the major library classification schemes and in archival practice and how and why bias and misrepresentation occur. Broad definitions of what is meant by diversity and religious pluralism and why it is a cause for concern precede a discussion of the standard model of interreligious attitudes (exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism) with particular reference to the philosophy of John Hick. This model is used as a lens through which to evaluate knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for evidence of comparable theoretical positions and to suggest a possible typology of religious KOSs. Archival and library practice are considered, and, despite their very different approaches, found to have some similarities in the way in which traditional societal structures have affected bias and misrepresentation of religious beliefs. There is, nevertheless, evidence of a general move towards a more pluralistic attitude to different faiths.

0.015688682 = product of:
  0.047066044 = sum of:
    0.047066044 = product of:
      0.09413209 = sum of:
        0.09413209 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09413209 = score(doc=976,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The terms 'semantics' and 'ontology' are increasingly appearing together with 'explanation', not only in the scientific literature, but also in organizational communication. However, all of these terms are also being significantly overloaded. In this paper, we discuss their strong relation under particular interpretations. Specifically, we discuss a notion of explanation termed ontological unpacking, which aims at explaining symbolic domain descriptions (conceptual models, knowledge graphs, logical specifications) by revealing their ontological commitment in terms of their assumed truthmakers, i.e., the entities in one's ontology that make the propositions in those descriptions true. To illustrate this idea, we employ an ontological theory of relations to explain (by revealing the hidden semantics of) a very simple symbolic model encoded in the standard modeling language UML. We also discuss the essential role played by ontology-driven conceptual models (resulting from this form of explanation processes) in properly supporting semantic interoperability tasks. Finally, we discuss the relation between ontological unpacking and other forms of explanation in philosophy and science, as well as in the area of Artificial Intelligence.

0.014791431 = product of:
  0.04437429 = sum of:
    0.04437429 = product of:
      0.08874858 = sum of:
        0.08874858 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08874858 = score(doc=575,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.34493396 = fieldWeight in 575, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

LCSH

Artificial intelligence / Philosophy

Subject

Artificial intelligence / Philosophy

0.014738094 = product of:
  0.044214282 = sum of:
    0.044214282 = product of:
      0.088428564 = sum of:
        0.088428564 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088428564 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16325426 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, 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=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.013073902 = product of:
  0.039221704 = sum of:
    0.039221704 = product of:
      0.07844341 = sum of:
        0.07844341 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07844341 = score(doc=5853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 5853, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

COVID-19 is an unprecedented global health crisis that will have immeasurable consequences for our economic and social well-being. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general of the World Health Organization, stated "We're not just fighting an epidemic; we're fighting an infodemic". Currently, there is no robust scientific basis to the existing definitions of false information used in the fight against the COVID-19infodemic. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the use of a novel taxonomy and related model (based upon a conceptual framework that synthesizes insights from information science, philosophy, media studies and politics) can produce new scientific definitions of mis-, dis- and malinformation. We undertake our analysis from the viewpoint of information systems research. The conceptual approach to defining mis-,dis- and malinformation can be applied to a wide range of empirical examples and, if applied properly, may prove useful in fighting the COVID-19 infodemic. In sum, our research suggests that: (i) analyzing all types of information is important in the battle against the COVID-19 infodemic; (ii) a scientific approach is required so that different methods are not used by different studies; (iii) "misinformation", as an umbrella term, can be confusing and should be dropped from use; (iv) clear, scientific definitions of information types will be needed going forward; (v) malinformation is an overlooked phenomenon involving reconfigurations of the truth.

0.013073902 = product of:
  0.039221704 = sum of:
    0.039221704 = product of:
      0.07844341 = sum of:
        0.07844341 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07844341 = score(doc=5881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 5881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Traditionally connected to philosophy, the term ontology is increasingly related to information systems areas. Some researchers consider the approaches of the two disciplinary contexts to be completely different. Others consider that, although different, they should talk to each other, as both seek to answer similar questions. With the extensive literature on this topic, we intend to contribute to the understanding of the use of the term ontology in current research and which references support this use. An exploratory study was developed with a mixed methodology and a sample collected from the Web of Science of articles publishe in 2018. The results show the current prevalence of computer science in studies related to ontology and also of Gruber's view suggesting ontology as kind of conceptualization, a dominant view in that field. Some researchers, particularly in the field of biomedicine, do not adhere to this dominant view but to another one that seems closer to ontological study in the philosophical context. The term ontology, in the context of information systems, appears to be consolidating with a meaning different from the original, presenting traces of the process of "metaphorization" in the transfer of the term between the two fields of study.

0.013073902 = product of:
  0.039221704 = sum of:
    0.039221704 = product of:
      0.07844341 = sum of:
        0.07844341 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07844341 = score(doc=315,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 315, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=315)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Software has become a key component of contemporary life and algorithmic techniques that rank, classify, or recommend anything that fits into digital form are everywhere. This book approaches the field of information ordering conceptually as well as historically. Building on the philosophy of Gilbert Simondon and the cultural techniques tradition, it first examines the constructive and cumulative character of software and shows how software-making constantly draws on large reservoirs of existing knowledge and techniques. It then reconstructs the historical trajectories of a series of algorithmic techniques that have indeed become the building blocks for contemporary practices of ordering. Developed in opposition to centuries of library tradition, coordinate indexing, text processing, machine learning, and network algorithms instantiate dynamic, perspectivist, and interested forms of arranging information, ideas, or people. Embedded in technical infrastructures and economic logics, these techniques have become engines of order that transform the spaces they act upon.

0.013073902 = product of:
  0.039221704 = sum of:
    0.039221704 = product of:
      0.07844341 = sum of:
        0.07844341 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07844341 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The individualistic lens refers to the understanding of problematic information as something that is clearly identifiable, with objective criteria of measurement. This article argues for adding a non-individualistic lens for understanding information. The necessity for adding a non-individualistic lens grows from that the existing individualistic lens appears inadequate to make sense of information phenomenon, in particular when it comes to understanding problematic information. Non-individualistic is proposed as a complementary perspective, which needs to be further developed conceptually. To begin such development, this article directs information professionals' attention to the promising concept of information ecology. More specifically, this article pulls resources from philosophy of information (Floridi's infosphere) and information ethics (Capurro's Angeletics) to illustrate existing conceptualizations of information ecology. Information ecology appears to align with this sociotechnical view that information researchers have started to develop in the most recent years, though arguably information ecology may have an even broader scope. Lastly, this article also points out that the conceptualization of information ecology needs to be aware of, and cautious of the philosophical assumption that is relied on for understanding information.

0.013073902 = product of:
  0.039221704 = sum of:
    0.039221704 = product of:
      0.07844341 = sum of:
        0.07844341 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07844341 = score(doc=594,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.

0.013073902 = product of:
  0.039221704 = sum of:
    0.039221704 = product of:
      0.07844341 = sum of:
        0.07844341 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07844341 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046619706 = queryNorm
            0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.