Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

0.10973629 = product of:
  0.32920888 = sum of:
    0.08230222 = product of:
      0.24690665 = sum of:
        0.24690665 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24690665 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.24690665 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24690665 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

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.

0.024158826 = 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.

0.022313368 = product of:
  0.0669401 = sum of:
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 4522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=4522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 4522, 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=4522)
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 4522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=4522,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4522, 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=4522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Alternative Fakten? Wie konnte es passieren, dass Gerücht, Lüge, Fakt und Wahrheit ununterscheidbar wurden? Robert Feustel untersucht die Wissensgeschichte von der Industrialisierung bis zur Digitalisierung und zeigt, wie im sogenannten Informationszeitalter ebenjene "Information" zum Heiligen Geist mutierte und den Unterschied zwischen Wahrheit und Lüge einebnet: Hauptsache sie zirkulieren möglichst reibungslos und in Echtzeit. Schließlich gerät auch das Bild des Menschen in den Sog der Digitalisierung. Was unterscheidet das menschliche Denken vom prozessierenden Computer?

Date

1. 1.2019 11:22:34

0.015938118 = product of:
  0.047814354 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

0.0119014885 = product of:
  0.07140893 = sum of:
    0.07140893 = product of:
      0.14281785 = sum of:
        0.14281785 = weight(_text_:programs in 5039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14281785 = score(doc=5039,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.5546745 = fieldWeight in 5039, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5039)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The almost universal reliance upon digital tools for social, academic, and career development will only become more pronounced in the years to come. Teacher education programs remain ill-equipped to adequately prepare educators with the pedagogies needed to foster digital literacies. What is needed is a set of best practices towards teaching digital literacies so that teachers can better meet the emerging needs of their students in today's classrooms. Where should teachers begin? What are the essentials of digital literacies within K-12 contexts? And how might we reimagine teacher education programs to optimally prepare teachers for working with technologically connected youth, whose literacies are more complex, interconnected, and diverse than ever?This edited volume provides a practical framework for teacher education programs to develop K-12 students' digital literacies. It serves as a set of best practices in teaching digital literacies that promotes access to research-based pedagogies for immediate implementation in their classrooms

0.010994123 = product of:
  0.065964736 = sum of:
    0.065964736 = product of:
      0.13192947 = sum of:
        0.13192947 = weight(_text_:programs in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13192947 = score(doc=692,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.5123863 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

How Information Matters examines the ways a network of state and local governments and nonprofit organizations can enhance the capacity for successful policy change by public administrators. Hale examines drug courts, programs that typify the highly networked, collaborative environment of public administrators today. These "special dockets" implement justice but also drug treatment, case management, drug testing, and incentive programs for non-violent offenders in lieu of jail time. In a study that spans more than two decades, Hale shows ways organizations within the network act to champion, challenge, and support policy innovations over time. Her description of interactions between courts, administrative agencies, and national organizations highlight the evolution of collaborative governance in the state and local arena, with vignettes that share specific experiences across six states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and Tennessee) and ways that they acquired knowledge from the network to make decisions. How Information Matters offers valuable insight into successful ways for collaboration and capacity building. It will be of special interest to public administrators or policymakers who wish to identify ways to improve their own programs' performance.

Content

Inhalt: Intergovernmental relationships, information, and policy change -- From information to innovation: the drug court experience -- Network relationships, implementation, and policy success: a national influence -- Using strategic information to build programs: templates, mentors, and research -- Information and systemic change: new professionals and new institutions -- Information, synthesis, and synergy: a national nonprofit information network -- Bringing value to public decisions: information relationships, tools, and processes.

0.010923296 = product of:
  0.06553978 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=3397,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 3397, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3397)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

What we consider to be the influence of philosophy on scientific thinking largely depends on how science perceives itself. The understanding and conscious human-oriented design of the relationship between the computer and the creatively active person - i.e. the design of a formal model and the non-formal, natural and social environment - is always more readily recognized as the fundamental philosophical, theoretical and methodological problem of informatics (computer science and information systems). Informatics/computer science results from the necessity to overcome the tension between technology-based automation, which is based on a purely syntactic interpretation and transformation of information, and creative and active people who carry out semantic information processing based on their knowledge. It is this tension that requires the development and use of user-oriented software and the formal operations to be integrated into complex human work processes. Conceptual strategies that foster the development and integration of modern information technologies into social organization are currently the topic of vivid philosophical and methodological discussions, reflecting the influence of different philosophical schools. The utilization of information technologies has significantly changed both employee working conditions and the relationship between organizations and their environment. The development of humanity-oriented computer science is a necessary condition for integrating computational systems into social contexts and for largely adapting these systems to the users' needs.

0.010923296 = product of:
  0.06553978 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 4330, 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=4330)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.010923296 = product of:
  0.06553978 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=4331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 4331, 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=4331)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Computer können längst nicht alles. Online-Übersetzer zum Beispiel stoßen schnell an ihre Grenzen. Für den Kognitionswissenschaftler Douglas R. Hofstadter herrscht in vielen Maschinen effiziente Scheinintelligenz.

0.0097700935 = product of:
  0.058620557 = sum of:
    0.058620557 = weight(_text_:computer in 4449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058620557 = score(doc=4449,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3611429 = fieldWeight in 4449, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4449)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In a new study, computer scientists found that artificial intelligence systems fail a vision test a child could accomplish with ease. "It's a clever and important study that reminds us that 'deep learning' isn't really that deep," said Gary Marcus , a neuroscientist at New York University who was not affiliated with the work. The result takes place in the field of computer vision, where artificial intelligence systems attempt to detect and categorize objects. They might try to find all the pedestrians in a street scene, or just distinguish a bird from a bicycle (which is a notoriously difficult task). The stakes are high: As computers take over critical tasks like automated surveillance and autonomous driving, we'll want their visual processing to be at least as good as the human eyes they're replacing. It won't be easy. The new work accentuates the sophistication of human vision - and the challenge of building systems that mimic it. In the study, the researchers presented a computer vision system with a living room scene. The system processed it well. It correctly identified a chair, a person, books on a shelf. Then the researchers introduced an anomalous object into the scene - an image of elephant. The elephant's mere presence caused the system to forget itself: Suddenly it started calling a chair a couch and the elephant a chair, while turning completely blind to other objects it had previously seen. Researchers are still trying to understand exactly why computer vision systems get tripped up so easily, but they have a good guess. It has to do with an ability humans have that AI lacks: the ability to understand when a scene is confusing and thus go back for a second glance.

0.00973914 = product of:
  0.05843484 = sum of:
    0.05843484 = weight(_text_:web in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05843484 = score(doc=537,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Internet has substantially increased the online accessibility of scholarly publications and allowed researchers to access relevant information efficiently across different journals and databases (Costa & Meadows, ). Because of online accessibility, academic researchers tend to read more, and reading has become more superficial (Olle & Borrego, ), such that information overload has become an important issue. Given this circumstance, how the Internet affects knowledge transfer, or, more specifically, the citation behavior of researchers, has become a recent focus of interest. This study assesses the effects of the Internet on citation patterns in terms of 4 characteristics of cited documents: topic relevance, author status, journal prestige, and age of references. This work hypothesizes that academic scholars cite more topically relevant articles, more articles written by lower status authors, articles published in less prestigious journals, and older articles with online accessibility. The current study also hypothesizes that researcher knowledge level moderates such Internet effects. We chose the "IT and Group" subject area and collected 241 documents published in the pre-web period (1991-1995) and 867 documents published in the web-prevalent period (2006-2010) in the Web of Science database. The references of these documents were analyzed to test the proposed hypotheses, which are significantly supported by the empirical results.

0.009633917 = product of:
  0.057803504 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper evaluates the data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy. This hierarchy, also known as the `knowledge hierarchy', is part of the canon of information science and management. Arguments are offered that the hierarchy is unsound and methodologically undesirable. The paper identifies a central logical error that DIKW makes. The paper also identifies the dated and unsatisfactory philosophical positions of operationalism and inductivism as the philosophical backdrop to the hierarchy. The paper concludes with a sketch of some positive theories, of value to information science, on the nature of the components of the hierarchy: that data is anything recordable in a semantically and pragmatically sound way, that information is what is known in other literature as `weak knowledge', that knowledge also is `weak knowledge' and that wisdom is the possession and use, if required, of wide practical knowledge, by an agent who appreciates the fallible nature of that knowledge.

0.008028265 = product of:
  0.04816959 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose The concept of information is central to several fields of research and professional practice. So many definitions have been put forward that complete inventory is unachievable while authors have failed to reach a consensus. In the face of the present impasse, innovative proposals could rouse information theorists to action, but literature surveys tend to emphasize the common traits of definitions. Reviewers are inclined to iron out originality in information models; thus the purpose of this paper is to discover the creativity of authors attempting to define the concept of information and to stimulate the progress of studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach Because the present inquiry could be influenced and distorted by personal criteria and opinions, the authors have adopted precise criteria and guidelines. It could be said the present approach approximates a statistical methodology. Findings The findings of this paper include (1) The authors found 32 original definitions of information which sometimes current surveys have overlooked. (2) The authors found a relation between information theories and advances in information technology. (3) Overall, the authors found that researchers take account of a wide variety of perspectives yet overlook the notion of information as used by computing practitioners such as electronic engineers and software developers. Research limitations/implications The authors comment on some limitations of the procedure that was followed. Results 1 and 3 open up new possibilities for theoretical research in the information domain. Originality/value This is an attempt to conduct a bibliographical inquiry driven by objective and scientific criteria; its value lies in the fact that final report has not been influenced by personal choice or arbitrary viewpoints.

0.007723937 = product of:
  0.04634362 = sum of:
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=4474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 4474, 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=4474)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article proposes a theory of information need for information retrieval (IR). Information need traditionally denotes the start state for someone seeking information, which includes information search using an IR system. There are two perspectives on information need. The dominant, computer science perspective is that the user needs to find an answer to a well-defined question which is easy for the user to formulate into a query to the system. Ironically, information science's best known model of information need (Taylor, 1968) deems it to be a "black box"-unknowable and nonspecifiable by the user in a query to the information system. Information science has instead devoted itself to studying eight adjacent or surrogate concepts (information seeking, search and use; problem, problematic situation and task; sense making and evolutionary adaptation/information foraging). Based on an analysis of these eight adjacent/surrogate concepts, we create six testable propositions for a theory of information need. The central assumption of the theory is that while computer science sees IR as an information- or answer-finding system, focused on the user finding an answer, an information science or user-oriented theory of information need envisages a knowledge formulation/acquisition system.

0.0065539777 = product of:
  0.039323866 = sum of:
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=2375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 2375, 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=2375)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Moments after mankind started to make moveable physical records describing the world about them people started to store and arrange the records in logical order. Thereafter, records were copied and translated and simple catalogues of collections were compiled. Others, working from these records and from oral sources compiled lists, dictionaries and encyclopaedias. As the means of communication developed from the first revolutionary invention of writing to other revolutions in communication methods, notably printing with moveable type and the computer, techniques of knowledge organization became more sophisticated and powerful. In the first half of the twenty-first century we are faced with an unprecedented communications overload and the full range of knowledge organization techniques need to be deployed, further developed and applied.

0.0061791493 = product of:
  0.037074894 = sum of:
    0.037074894 = weight(_text_:computer in 3407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037074894 = score(doc=3407,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.22840683 = fieldWeight in 3407, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3407)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Over the last four decades computers and the internet have become an intrinsic part of all our lives, but this speed of development has left related philosophical enquiry behind. Featuring the work of computer scientists and philosophers, these essays provide an overview of an exciting new area of philosophy that is still taking shape.

Content

Introduction: Philosophy's Relevance in Computing and Information Science - Ruth Hagengruber and Uwe V.Riss Part I: Philosophy of Computing and Information 1 The Fourth Revolution in our Self-Understanding - Luciano Floridi -- 2 Information Transfer as a Metaphor - Jakob Krebs -- 3 With Aristotle towards a Differentiated Concept of Information? - Uwe Voigt -- 4 The Influence of Philosophy on the Understanding of Computing and Information - Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski -- Part II: Complexity and System Theory 5 The Emergence of Self-Conscious Systems: From Symbolic AI to Embodied Robotics - Klaus Mainzer -- 6 Artificial Intelligence as a New Metaphysical Project - Aziz F. Zambak Part III: Ontology 7 The Relevance of Philosophical Ontology to Information and Computer Science - Barry Smith -- 8 Ontology, its Origins and its Meaning in Information Science - Jens Kohne -- 9 Smart Questions: Steps towards an Ontology of Questions and Answers - Ludwig Jaskolla and Matthias Rugel Part IV: Knowledge Representation 10 Sophisticated Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Requires Philosophy - Selmer Bringsjord, Micah Clark and Joshua Taylor -- 11 On Frames and Theory-Elements of Structuralism Holger Andreas -- 12 Ontological Complexity and Human Culture David J. Saab and Frederico Fonseca Part V: Action Theory 13 Knowledge and Action between Abstraction and Concretion - Uwe V.Riss -- 14 Action-Directing Construction of Reality in Product Creation Using Social Software: Employing Philosophy to Solve Real-World Problems - Kai Holzweifiig and Jens Krüger -- 15 An Action-Theory-Based Treatment ofTemporal Individuals - Tillmann Pross -- 16 Four Rules for Classifying Social Entities - Ludger Jansen Part VI: Info-Computationalism 17 Info-Computationalism and Philosophical Aspects of Research in Information Sciences - Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic -- 18 Pancomputationalism: Theory or Metaphor ? - Vincent C. Mutter Part VII: Ethics 19 The Importance of the Sources of Professional Obligations - Francis C. Dane

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=3395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

An intuitive understanding of information concerns the means by which knowledge is acquired. This notion corresponds to an instantiation of the complementary properties of 'being informative' and 'being informed'. It is in this intuitive sense that the term 'information' is used in many accounts of verbal communication and explicit learning. But the term is furthermore prominent in accounts of genetics, neurobiology and cognitive science, as well as in communications engineering, and computer sciences. In view of this transdisciplinary use of the word 'information', some theoreticians hope for a unified conception that would serve as a common denominator in interdisciplinary investigations. According to this promise, we would then be equipped with a singular conceptional grasp on physical and genetic structures, on neuronal patterns as well as on cognitive and communicative events. Unfortunately, a unified concept of information is far from being spelled out, since many of the disciplines mentioned above follow quite different approaches. Even in the context of 'information science' itself, extensive differences prevail on the notions of data, information and knowledge and their conceptual interconnections. But if we detect not a single but various conceptions of information, we should not expect a single but various theories of information - a point made by Claude Shannon long before the transdisciplinary implementation of his mathematical theory. When one or the other 'theory of information' gets implemented into theories of communication or learning, for example, these theories thereby inherit one particular conception of information.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=3396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3396)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We are talking about 'information' in many different contexts: not only in our ordinary language, but also in the highly specialized discourses of the theory of communication, computer science, physics, biology, cultural studies, and so forth. As we do so, are we using the same concept each and every time? Is there one and only one concept of information connecting all these different usages of one word (and its linguistic 'relatives' in languages other than English)? This question has accompanied the 'information talk' for many years and recently has lead to the so-called 'Capurro trilemma'. According to this trilemma, throughout those various contexts the words we use either (A) have the same meaning or (B) completely different meanings or (C) different meanings which nevertheless are somehow connected. As the unity of meaning is a minimal condition for the identity of a concept, in case (A) there is only one concept of information (univocity); in case (B) we deal with several concepts of information (equivocation); in case (C) it is the question of just precisely how the different concepts are interconnected. The authors describing the dilemma suggest Wittgensteinian family resemblance and Aristotelian analogy, but they do not seem to be satisfied by their solutions. Therefore, according to them, we are facing a real trilemma whose single horns are equally unattractive.