Search (175 results, page 1 of 9)

0.07838307 = product of:
  0.2351492 = sum of:
    0.0587873 = product of:
      0.1763619 = sum of:
        0.1763619 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1763619 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, 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=5895)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.1763619 = weight(_text_:2f in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1763619 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, 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=5895)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Politische Meinung. 381(2001) Nr.1, S.65-74 [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgfe.de%2Ffileadmin%2FOrdnerRedakteure%2FSektionen%2FSek02_AEW%2FKWF%2FPublikationen_Reihe_1989-2003%2FBand_17%2FBd_17_1994_355-406_A.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KcbRsHy5UQ9QRIUyuOLNi]

0.07838307 = product of:
  0.2351492 = sum of:
    0.0587873 = product of:
      0.1763619 = sum of:
        0.1763619 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1763619 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.1763619 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1763619 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_

0.045727298 = product of:
  0.1371819 = sum of:
    0.07946275 = weight(_text_:computer in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07946275 = score(doc=504,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.48954517 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
    0.057719145 = product of:
      0.11543829 = sum of:
        0.11543829 = weight(_text_:programs in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11543829 = score(doc=504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.44833803 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Technological changes are occuring rapidly and students entering colleges are bringing very disparate computer skills and attitudes. Some students are reluctant to embrace new technologies, others demand electronic resources for all assignments. By considering the computer access and Internet resources available to elementary school students today, it is possible to imagine what tomorrow's users will expect from libraries. Although college students may arrive at libraries with increased computer skills, their knowledge of electronic information may be lacking. Defines information literacy with an overview of information literacy skills. The Digital Information Literacy programme at Texas University at Austin serves as a case study for integrating information literacy skills into traditional services and partnerships

0.038251486 = product of:
  0.11475445 = sum of:
    0.07864773 = weight(_text_:computer in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07864773 = score(doc=4231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.48452407 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
    0.03610672 = product of:
      0.07221344 = sum of:
        0.07221344 = weight(_text_:22 in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07221344 = score(doc=4231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:05:31

0.036193818 = product of:
  0.072387636 = sum of:
    0.028901752 = weight(_text_:wide in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028901752 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14686027 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.015679711 = weight(_text_:web in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015679711 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.02780617 = weight(_text_:computer in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02780617 = score(doc=300,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.17130512 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Content

"Unser Gedächtnis ist oft nervtötend unzuverlässig. Wir stoßen jeden Tag an seine Grenzen, wenn uns die Telefonnummer eines Freundes, der Name eines Geschäftspartners oder der Titel eines Lieblingsbuchs nicht einfallen will. Wir alle haben Strategien gegen die Folgen unserer Vergesslichkeit entwickelt, vom guten alten Schmierzettel bis zum elektronischen Terminplaner, und trotzdem gehen uns immer wieder wichtige Informationen durch die Lappen. Seit einiger Zeit arbeiten wir in einer Gruppe bei Microsoft Research an einem Pilotprojekt, das der Unvollkommenheit unseres Gedächtnisses radikal abhelfen soll: der totalen digitalen Aufzeichnung eines Menschenlebens. Unsere erste Versuchsperson ist einer von uns: Gordon Bell. Seit sechs Jahren unternehmen wir es, seine Kommunikation mit anderen Menschen sowie all seine Interaktion mit Maschinen aufzuzeichnen, außerdem alles, was er sieht und hört, sowie alle Internetseiten, die er aufsucht, und dies alles in einem persönlichen digitalen Archiv abzuspeichern, das einerseits leicht zu durchsuchen und andererseits sicher ist. Die Aufzeichnung beschränkt sich nicht auf bewusst Erlebtes. Tragbare Sensoren messen Dinge, die der Mensch überhaupt nicht wahrnimmt, wie etwa den Sauerstoffgehalt im Blut oder die CO, -Konzentration in der Atemluft. Ein Computer kann dann diese Daten auf gewisse Muster hin durchsuchen; so wäre zum Beispiel festzustellen, unter welchen Umweltbedingungen sich Asthma bei einem Kind verschlimmert oder ob die Daten des Herzschlags zusammen mit anderen physiologischen Größen Vorboten eines Herzanfalls sind. In Gestalt dieser Sensoren läuft also ein permanentes medizinisches Früherkennungsprogramm. Ihr Arzt hätte Zugang zu Ihrer detaillierten und ständig aktuellen Krankenakte, und wenn Sie, wie üblich, auf die Frage »Wann ist dieses Symptom zum ersten Mal aufgetreten?« keine klare Antwort haben - im digitalen Archiv ist sie zu finden.
In unserem Forschungsprojekt »MyLifeBits« haben wir einige Hilfsmittel für ein solches lebenslanges digitales Archiv ausgearbeitet. Es gelingt uns inzwischen, ein Ereignis so lebensecht in Ton und Bild wiederzugeben, dass dies der persönliche Erinnerung so aufhilft wie das Internet der wissenschaftlichen Recherche. Zu jedem Wort, das der Besitzer des Archivs irgendwann - in einer E-Mail, in einem elektronischen Dokument oder auf einer Internetseite - gelesen hat, findet er mit ein paar Tastendrücken den Kontext. Der Computer führt eine Statistik über die Beschäftigungen seines Besitzers und macht ihn beizeiten darauf aufmerksam, dass er sich für die wichtigen Dinge des Lebens nicht genügend Zeit nimmt. Er kann auch die räumliche Position seines Herrn in regelmäßigen Zeitabständen festhalten und damit ein komplettes Bewegungsbild erstellen. Aber vielleicht das Wichtigste: Das Leben eines Menschen wird der Nachwelt, insbesondere seinen Kindern und Enkeln, so genau, so lebhaft und mit allen Einzelheiten überliefert, wie es bisher den Reichen und Berühmten vorbehalten war.
Ein Netz von Pfaden Ein früher Traum von einem maschinell erweiterten Gedächtnis wurde gegen Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs von Vannevar Bush geäußert. Bush, damals Direktor des Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), das die militärischen Forschungsprogramme der USA koordinierte, und besser bekannt als Erfinder des Analogrechners, stellte 1945 in seinem Aufsatz »As we may think« eine fiktive Maschine namens Memex (Memory Extender, »Gedächtnis-Erweiterer«) vor, die alle Bücher, alle Aufzeichnungen und die gesamte Kommunikation eines Menschen auf Mikrofilm speichern sollte. Das Memex sollte in einem Schreibtisch eingebaut sein und über eine Tastatur, ein Mikrofon und mehrere Bildschirme verfügen. Bush hatte vorgesehen, dass der Benutzer am Schreibtisch mit einer Kamera Fotografien und Dokumente auf Mikrofilm ablichtete oder neue Dokumente erstellte, indem er auf einen berührungsempfindlichen Bildschirm schrieb. Unterwegs sollte eine per Stirnband am Kopf befestigte Kamera das Aufzeichnen übernehmen. Vor allem aber sollte das Memex ähnlich dem menschlichen Gehirn zu assoziativem Denken fähig sein. Bush beschreibt das sehr plastisch: »Kaum hat es einen Begriff erfasst, schon springt es zum nächsten, geleitet von Gedankenassoziationen und entlang einem komplexen Netz von Pfaden, das sich durch die Gehirnzellen zieht.« Im Lauf des folgenden halben Jahrhunderts entwickelten unerschrockene Informatikpioniere, unter ihnen Ted Nelson und Douglas Engelbart, einige dieser Ideen, und die Erfinder des World Wide Web setzten Bushs »Netz von Pfaden« in die Netzstruktur ihrer verlinkten Seiten um. Das Memex selbst blieb jedoch technisch außer Reichweite. Erst in den letzten Jahren haben die rasanten Fortschritte in Speichertechnik, Sensorik und Rechentechnologie den Weg für neue Aufzeichnungs- und Suchtechniken geebnet, die im Endeffekt weit über Bushs Vision hinausgehen könnten."

0.036030654 = product of:
  0.10809196 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=2810,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
    0.04255218 = product of:
      0.08510436 = sum of:
        0.08510436 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08510436 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Es klingt wie Science-Fiction, aber Facebock arbeitet wirklich daran: Das Online-Netzwerk forscht an einer Technologie, mit der Menschen ihre Gedanken ohne Umweg über eine Tastatur direkt in einen Computer schreiben können.

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.03237579 = product of:
  0.09712737 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In response to the perceived (by some) onset of an information society, historians have begun to study its roots and antecedents. The past is replete with the rise, fall, and transformation of systems of information, which are not to be confused with the narrower computer-mediated world of information systems. The history of systems of information-which for digestibility can be labeled information history-lacks neither scale nor scope. Systems of information have played a critical role in the transition to, and subsequent development of, capitalism; the growth of the state, especially the modern, nation-state; the rise of modernity, science, and the public sphere; imperialism; and geopolitics. In the context of these epochal shifts and episodes in human thinking and social organization, this essay presents a critical bibliographic survey of histories-outside the well-trodden paths of library and information-science history-that have foregrounded, or made reference to, a wide variety of systems of information.

0.029720977 = product of:
  0.08916293 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 2335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=2335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2335)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Wie eine gigantische Informationslandschaft tut sich das Internet vor unseren Augen auf. Und seit sich Google im Herbst letzten Jahres mit den Autoren und Verlegern, die die große Suchmaschine wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung verklagt hatten, auf einen Vergleich geeinigt hat, stellt sich die Frage nach der Orientierung im World Wide Web mit neuer Dringlichkeit. Während der letzten vier Jahre hat Google Millionen von Büchern, darunter zahllose urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke, aus den Beständen großer Forschungsbibliotheken digitalisiert und für die Onlinesuche ins Netz gestellt. Autoren und Verleger machten dagegen geltend, dass die Digitalisierung eine Copyrightverletzung darstelle. Nach langwierigen Verhandlungen einigte man sich auf eine Regelung, die gravierende Auswirkungen darauf haben wird, wie Bücher den Weg zu ihren Lesern finden. . . .

0.024158826 = product of:
  0.07247648 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=5078,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A clear line of argument can be set out to link the (passive) intellectual freedom rights offered by Article Nineteen of the United Nations' Universal Declaration on Human Rights, to a consequent responsibility on governments, professionals and civil society activists for the (active) creation of suitable conditions for the effective exercise of intellectual freedom. Commentators on media in society and socially responsible computing are also increasingly drawing conclusions of this kind and stressing the importance of Media Literacy and Computer Literacy. This line of argument naturally directs attention towards the rationale currently offered for Information Literacy as a focus of professional activity. Whilst there are many elaborately worked-out programmes for Information Literacy instruction, these have so far been largely derived from practical perceptions of need. However, broad statements such as the Prague Declaration 'Towards an Information Literate Society' of 2003 and the Alexandria Proclamation of 2005 can be seen as beginning to point towards a rationale for Information Literacy activities rooted in human rights, Article Nineteen in particular. The contention is that starting from a human rights perspective leads towards a strong, inclusive interpretation of Information Literacy. This subsumes Media Literacy, Computer Literacy, Web Literacy and, to a considerable extent, Civic Literacy into a model that serves human needs rather than the established priorities of information professionals. The value of this approach for both practice and research is stressed.

0.023561096 = product of:
  0.070683286 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This article reviews selected literature related to the credibility of information, including (1) the general markers of credibility, and how different source, message and receiver characteristics affect people's perceptions of information; (2) the impact of information medium on the assessment of credibility; and (3) the assessment of credibility in the context of information presented on the Internet. The objective of the literature review is to synthesize the current state of knowledge in this area, develop new ways to think about how people interact with information presented via the Internet, and suggest next steps for research and practical applications. The review examines empirical evidence, key reviews, and descriptive material related to credibility in general, and in terms of on-line media. A general discussion of credibility and persuasion and a description of recent work on the credibility and persuasiveness of computer-based applications is presented. Finally, the article synthesizes what we have learned from various fields, and proposes a model as a framework for much-needed future research in this area

0.022313368 = product of:
  0.0669401 = sum of:
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Navigation is a limited metaphor for hypermedia and website use that potentially constraints our understanding of human-computer interaction. Traces the emergence of the navigation metaphor and the emprical analysis of navigation measures in usability evaluation before suggesting an alternative concept to consider: shape. The shape concept affords a richer analytic tool for considering humans' use of digital documents and invokes social level analysis of meaning that are shared among discourse communities who both produce and consume the information resources

Date

6. 2.1999 20:10:22

0.021627024 = product of:
  0.12976214 = sum of:
    0.12976214 = weight(_text_:computer in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12976214 = score(doc=2930,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.79942393 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

NATO ASI series, series F: computer and system sciences; 81

Theme

Computer Based Training

0.020462697 = product of:
  0.06138809 = sum of:
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

0.019147621 = product of:
  0.057442863 = sum of:
    0.045407288 = weight(_text_:computer in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045407288 = score(doc=2959,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2797401 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

1957 hat Karl Steinbuch mit seinem Mitarbeiter Helmut Gröttrup den Begriff "Informatik" erfunden. Er gebrauchte diesen Begriff nicht zur Bezeichnung eines wissenschaftlichen Fachgebiets, sondern eher für seine Abteilung bei der Firma SEL in Stuttgart. Zu dieser Zeit standen sich in diesem Feld drei Parteien gegenüber: Die Mathematiker, die mit Rechenanlagen elektronisch rechneten, die Elektrotechniker, die Nachrichtenverarbeitung trieben und die Wirtschaftler und Lochkartenleute, die mit mechanisch-elektronischen Geräten zählten, buchten und aufsummierten. Während sich in den USA und England die Mathematiker mit dem Namen für das Gerät "Computer" durchsetzten und die Wissenschaft pragmatisch "Computer Science" genannt wurde, war in Deutschland die Diskussion bis in die 60er Jahre unentschieden: Die Abkürzung EDV hält sich noch immer gegenüber "Rechner" und "Computer"; Steinbuch selbst nannte 1962 sein Taschenbuch nicht "Taschenbuch der Informatik" sondern "Taschenbuch der Nachrichtenverarbeitung". 1955 wurde eine Informatik-Tagung in Darmstadt noch "Elektronische Rechenanlagen und Informationsverarbeitung" genannt. Die Internationale Gesellschaft hieß "International Federation for Information Processing". 1957 aber definierte Steinbuch "Informatik" als "Automatische Informationsverarbeitung" und war auf diese Art den Mathematikern entgegengegangen. Als Firmenbezeichnung schien der Begriff geschützt zu sein. Noch 1967 wurde der Fachbeirat der Bundesregierung "für Datenverarbeitung" genannt. Erst als die Franzosen die Bezeichnung "Informatique" verwendeten, war der Weg frei für die Übernahme. So wurde der Ausschuss des Fachbeirats zur Etablierung des Hochschulstudiums bereits der "Einführung von Informatik-Studiengängen" gewidmet. Man überzeugte den damaligen Forschungsminister Stoltenberg und dieser machte in einer Rede den Begriff "Informatik" publik. Ende der 60er Jahre übernahmen F. L. Bauer und andere den Begriff, nannten 1969 die Berufsgenossenschaft "Gesellschaft für Informatik" und sorgten für die entsprechende Benennung des wissenschaftlichen Fachgebiets. Die strittigen Grundbegriffe dieses Prozesses: Information/Informationen, Nachrichten und Daten scheinen heute nur Nuancen zu trennen. Damals ging es natürlich auch um Politik, um Forschungsrichtungen, um den Geist der Wissenschaft, um die Ausrichtung. Mehr Mathematik, mehr Ingenieurwissenschaft oder mehr Betriebswirtschaft, so könnte man die Grundströmungen vereinfachen. Mit der Ausrichtung der Informatik nicht versöhnte Elektrotechniker nannten sich Informationstechniker, die Datenverarbeiter sammelten sich im Lager der Wirtschaftsinformatiker. Mit den Grundbegriffen der Informatik, Nachricht, Information, Datum, hat es seitdem umfangreiche Auseinandersetzungen gegeben. Lehrbücher mussten geschrieben werden, Lexika und Nachschlagewerke wurden verfasst, Arbeitsgruppen tagten. Die Arbeiten C. Shannons zur Kommunikation, mit denen eine statistische Informationstheorie eingeführt worden war, spielten dabei nur eine geringe Rolle.

Date

5. 4.2013 10:22:48

0.018919704 = product of:
  0.11351822 = sum of:
    0.11351822 = weight(_text_:computer in 8018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11351822 = score(doc=8018,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.69935024 = fieldWeight in 8018, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8018)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes a computer program, UCIE (Understanding Cognitive Information Engineering), designed for computer user interface applications by simulating graphical perception. Reports results of an empirical study to determine the performance of the software and the user interface

Source

Human-computer interaction. 8(1993) no.4, S.353-388

0.017514316 = product of:
  0.052542947 = sum of:
    0.02780617 = weight(_text_:computer in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02780617 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.17130512 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
    0.024736777 = product of:
      0.049473554 = sum of:
        0.049473554 = weight(_text_:programs in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049473554 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19214487 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).
It is my hope that domain analysis may contribute to the strengthening of the professional and scientific identity of our discipline and provide more coherence and depth in information studies. The paper is an argument about what should be core teachings in our field, It should be both broad enough to cover the important parts of IS and Specific enough to maintain a special focus and identity compared to, for example, computer science and the cognitive sciences. It is not a narrow view of information science and an the other hand it does not Set forth an unrealistic utopia."

0.017477274 = product of:
  0.10486364 = sum of:
    0.10486364 = weight(_text_:computer in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10486364 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6460321 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.017477274 = product of:
  0.10486364 = sum of:
    0.10486364 = weight(_text_:computer in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10486364 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6460321 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.017477274 = product of:
  0.10486364 = sum of:
    0.10486364 = weight(_text_:computer in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10486364 = score(doc=2931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6460321 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Computer Based Training

0.01605653 = product of:
  0.09633918 = sum of:
    0.09633918 = weight(_text_:wide in 3720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09633918 = score(doc=3720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 3720, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3720)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Presents a wide ranging look at the nature of information and at associated problems and concepts, based on a critical review of the literature of library and information science, organization science, cognitive sciences, communication theory, and other disciplines