Search (119 results, page 1 of 6)

0.16634454 = product of:
  0.2495168 = sum of:
    0.20287897 = weight(_text_:systematic in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20287897 = score(doc=136,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.71443415 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.04663783 = product of:
      0.09327566 = sum of:
        0.09327566 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09327566 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper suggests a framework and systematic definitions for 6 words commonly used in dthe field of information science: data, information, knowledge, wisdom, inspiration, and intelligence. We intend these definitions to lead to a quantification of information science, a quantification that will enable their measurement, manipulastion, and prediction.

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

0.117087215 = product of:
  0.17563082 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
    0.032173738 = product of:
      0.064347476 = sum of:
        0.064347476 = weight(_text_:indexing in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064347476 = score(doc=277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.3383389 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Analyses the elements which make up the term 'information' so that a systematic strategy for defining 'information' can be arrived at and applied by those professionals engaged in providing information about sources of information, subject classification and indexing, and abstracting. Discusses the processes of communication ('self-communication' and communication with others) and their relationship with knowledge; knowing, remembering and learning; organizations and association; the role of language in communication; information, knowledge and data; and the distinction between the medium of expression and the actual message conveyed

0.05122566 = product of:
  0.076838486 = sum of:
    0.06276248 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06276248 = score(doc=2110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.22101676 = fieldWeight in 2110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2110)
    0.01407601 = product of:
      0.02815202 = sum of:
        0.02815202 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02815202 = score(doc=2110,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.14802328 = fieldWeight in 2110, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Introduction; 1. Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan and Thomas Dousa.- 2. Cybersemiotics: A new foundation for transdisciplinary theory of information, cognition, meaning, communication and consciousness; Soren Brier.- 3. Epistemology and the Study of Social Information within the Perspective of a Unified Theory of Information;Wolfgang Hofkirchner.- 4. Perception and Testimony as Data Providers; Luciano Floridi.- 5. Human communication from the semiotic perspective; Winfried Noth.- 6. Mind the gap: transitions between concepts of information in varied domains; Lyn Robinson and David Bawden.- 7. Information and the disciplines: A conceptual meta-analysis; Jonathan Furner.- 8. Epistemological Challenges for Information Science; Ian Cornelius.- 9. The nature of information science and its core concepts; Birger Hjorland.- 10. Visual information construing: bistability as a revealer of mediating patterns; Sylvie Leleu-Merviel. - 11. Understanding users' informational constructs via a triadic method approach: a case study; Michel Labour. - 12. Documentary languages and the demarcation of information units in textual information: the case of Julius O. Kaisers's Systematic Indexing

0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=5510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 5510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5510)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is argued that in information science we have to distinguish physical, objective, or document space from perspective, subjective, or information space. These two spaces are like maps and landscapes: each is a systematic distortion of the other. However, transformations can be easily made once the two spaces are distinguished. If the transformations are omitted we only get unhelpful physical solutions to information problems

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=2129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 2129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2129)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Conceptualizes 'information theory' as a collective term for all information related theoretical models produced by a number of disciplines. There is a consensus in the scholarly community that information science and informatics does not, at present, have a focused systematic foundation of theoretical knowledge. Argues that this open endedness of the theoretical context can work to the advantage of the information sciences because of its capacity to accomodate future multidisciplinary research results. Briefly reviews the characteristics of information theories and offers perspectives on the implications of these characteristics for information planning and practice. Concludes that information research, including individual, societal, environmental and technological aspects, benefits from the flexibility of an open conceptual framework that closely resembles the dynamic world or reality

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Argues that in defining knowledge management it is necessary to distinguish between 2 distinct types of knowledge: tacit or implicit, and explicit. Argues that explicit information can be written down or expressed in some tangible form while implicit information is hard to formalize and is rooted in subjective insights, intuitions and hunches. The focus of successful knowledge management programmes is to make implicit knowledge about organizational knowledge explicit and to put in place systematic processes that identify it, develop it, share it, and exploit it. Describes steps that information professionals can take to move beyond basic knowledge databases and from knowledge management to knowledge leadership. Here there is a shift of emphasis from knowledge management to knowledge creation and innovation

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The field of information science is constantly changing. Therefore, information scientists are required to regularly review-and if necessary-redefine its fundamental building blocks. This article is one of four articles that documents the results of the Critical Delphi study conducted in 2003-2005. The study, "Knowledge Map of Information Science," was aimed at exploring the foundations of information science. The international panel was composed of 57 leading scholars from 16 countries who represent nearly all the major subfields and important aspects of the field. In this study, the author documents 50 definitions of information science, maps the major theoretical issues relevant to the formulation of a systematic conception, formulates six different conceptions of the field, and discusses their implications.

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since this book is into shifting worlds and changing minds it is best approached with a perspective open to change. What you get is a systematic dismantling of the cult of rationality through an examination of human perception. The result is a simpler, more natural way of being, free from the limitations of particular belief systems. The idea is that the emancipated mind finds peace through awareness and compassion. It is clearly written, but a bit scholarly drawing from a broad base of scientific and philosophical thought. As such it organizes and makes accessible some of the brightest thinkers of all time.

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 98) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=98,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 98, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=98)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article develops a non-reductionistic and interdisciplinary view of information and human knowing in the light of second-order cybernetics, where information is seen as 'a difference which makes a difference' for a living autopoietic (self-organizing, self-creating) system. Another key idea comes from the semiotics of Peirce: the understanding of signs as a triatic relation between an object, a representation, and an interpretant. Information is the interpretation of signs by living, feeling, aelf-organizing, biological and social systems. As a concrete example we attempt to describe Library and Information Science (LIS) - especially Information Retrieval (IR) - in a way that goes beyond the cognitivist 'information processing paradigm'. The mn problem of this paradigm is that its concept of information and language does not deal in a systematic way with how social and cultural dynamics set the contexts that determine the meaning of those signs and words that are the basic tools for LIS to organize and retrieve documents. The paradigm does not distinguish clearly enough between how the computer manipulate signs and how meaning is generated in autopoietic systems, and thereby the difference between physical and intellectual access

0.030688185 = product of:
  0.09206455 = sum of:
    0.09206455 = product of:
      0.27619365 = sum of:
        0.27619365 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27619365 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4212274 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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].

0.029886894 = product of:
  0.08966068 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=5914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 5914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5914)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The aim of the study was to develop an empirical measure for everyday information mastering (EIM). EIM describes the ways that individuals, based on their beliefs, attitudes, and expectations, orient themselves to information as a resource of everyday action. The key features of EIM were identified by conceptual analysis focusing on three EIM frameworks. Four modes of EIM-Proactive, Social, Reactive, and Passive-and their 12 constituents were identified. A survey of 39 items was developed in two pilot studies to operationalize the identified modes as measurable EIM constituents. The respondents in the main study were upper secondary school students (n = 412). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to validate subscales for each EIM constituent. Seven subscales emerged: Inquiring and Scanning in the Proactive mode, Social media-centered, and Experiential in the Social mode, and Information poor, Overwhelmed, and Blunting in the Passive mode. Two constituents, Serendipitous and Intuitive, were not supported in the EFA. The findings highlight that the core constituents of an individual's everyday information mastering can be operationalized as psychometric scales. The instrument contributes to the systematic empirical study of EIM constituents and their relationships. The study further sheds light on key modes of EIM.

0.029886894 = product of:
  0.08966068 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=353,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 353, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=353)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The information professions need a paradigmatic shift to address the epistemicide happening within our field and the ways we have systematically undermined knowledge systems falling outside of Western traditions. Epistemicide is the killing, silencing, annihilation, or devaluing of a knowledge system. We argue epistemicide happens when epistemic injustices are persistent and systematic and collectively work as a structured and systemic oppression of particular ways of knowing. We present epistemicide as a conceptual approach for understanding and analyzing ways knowledge systems are silenced or devalued within Information Science. We extend Fricker's framework by: (a) identifying new types of epistemic injustices, and (b) by adding to Fricker's concepts of Primary and Secondary Harm and introducing the concept of a Third Harm happening at an intergenerational level. Addressing epistemicide is critical for information professionals because we task ourselves with handling knowledge from every field. Acknowledgement of and taking steps to interrupt epistemic injustices and these specific harms are supportive of the social justice movements already happening. This paper serves as an interruption of epistemic injustice by presenting actions toward justice in the form of operationalized interventions of epistemicide.

0.02538642 = product of:
  0.07615925 = sum of:
    0.07615925 = product of:
      0.1523185 = sum of:
        0.1523185 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1523185 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:01:22

0.023909515 = product of:
  0.07172854 = sum of:
    0.07172854 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07172854 = score(doc=5379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.2525906 = fieldWeight in 5379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5379)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article is a contribution to the development of a comprehensive interdisciplinary theory of LIS in the hope of giving a more precise evaluation of its current problems. The article describes an interdisciplinary framework for LIS, especially information retrieval (IR), in a way that goes beyond the cognitivist 'information processing paradigm'. The main problem of this paradigm is that its concept of information and laguage does not deal in a systematic way with how social and cultural dynamics set the contexts that determine the meaning of those signs and words that are the basic tools for the organisation and retrieving of documents in LIS. The paradigm does not distinguish clearly enough between how the computer manipulates signs and how librarians work with meaning in practice when they design and run document mediating systems. The 'cognitive viewpoint' of Ingwersen and Belkin makes clear that information is not objective, but rather only potential, until it is interpreted by an individual mind with its own internal mental world view and purposes. It facilitates futher study of the social pragmatic conditions for the interpretation of concepts. This approach is not yet fully developed. The domain analytic paradigm of Hjoerland and Albrechtsen is a conceptual realisiation of an important aspect of this area. In the present paper we make a further development of a non-reductionistic and interdisciplinary view of information and human social communication by texts in the light of second-order cybernetics, where information is seen as 'a difference which makes a difference' for a living autopoietic (self-organised, self-creating) system. Other key ideas are from the semiotics of Peirce and also Warner. This is the understanding of signs as a triadic relation between an object, a representation and an interpretant. Information is the interpretation of signs by living, feeling, self-organising biological, psychological and social systems. Signification is created and controlled in an cybernetic way within social systems and is communicated through what Luhman calls generalised media, such as science and art. The modern socio-linguistic concept 'discourse communities' and Wittgenstein's 'language gane' concept give a further pragmatic description of the self-organising system's dynamic that determines the meaning of words in a social context. As Blair and Liebenau and Backhouse point out in their work it is these semantic fields of significance that are the true pragmatic tools of knowledge organisation and document retrieval. Methodologically they are the first systems to be analysed when designing document mediating systems as they set the context for the meaning of concepts. Several practical and analytical methods from linguistics and the sociology of knowledge can be used in combination with standard methodology to reveal the significant language games behind document mediation

0.023219395 = product of:
  0.06965818 = sum of:
    0.06965818 = product of:
      0.13931637 = sum of:
        0.13931637 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13931637 = score(doc=1590,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.7325252 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.

0.02192013 = product of:
  0.06576039 = sum of:
    0.06576039 = product of:
      0.19728117 = sum of:
        0.19728117 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19728117 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4212274 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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]

0.02192013 = product of:
  0.06576039 = sum of:
    0.06576039 = product of:
      0.19728117 = sum of:
        0.19728117 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19728117 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4212274 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.019039815 = product of:
  0.057119444 = sum of:
    0.057119444 = product of:
      0.11423889 = sum of:
        0.11423889 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11423889 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22
22. 7.2000 19:05:41

0.018575516 = product of:
  0.055726547 = sum of:
    0.055726547 = product of:
      0.11145309 = sum of:
        0.11145309 = weight(_text_:indexing in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11145309 = score(doc=320,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Building on Jens-Erik Mai: 'Semiotics and its uses in library and information science', discusses indexing and semiotics. Presents the concept significance affect as expression of an information effect in index words, based on a discussion of the key concepts in Geroge Lakoff's cognitive semantics: basic-level categorizing, cue validity, prototype effect, kinesthetic image schemas, metaphors, metonymy and radical structures, and idealized cognitive models

Content

Extract from the thesis 'Indexing, cognitive semantics and pragmatic semiotics', the Danish Library School Aalborg branch, 1998.

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Significance effect in indexing

0.01795091 = product of:
  0.053852726 = sum of:
    0.053852726 = product of:
      0.10770545 = sum of:
        0.10770545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10770545 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Ratio. 22(1980), S.155-164