Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.22850497 = product of:
  0.6398139 = sum of:
    0.055635996 = product of:
      0.16690798 = sum of:
        0.16690798 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16690798 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
    0.16690798 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16690798 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.08345399 = product of:
      0.16690798 = sum of:
        0.16690798 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16690798 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.16690798 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16690798 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.16690798 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16690798 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
  0.35714287 = coord(5/14)

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].

0.017034415 = product of:
  0.07949394 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
    0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029138058 = score(doc=4926,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
    0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029138058 = score(doc=4926,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).

0.015523737 = product of:
  0.10866616 = sum of:
    0.014852478 = weight(_text_:subject in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014852478 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.13830662 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
    0.09381368 = weight(_text_:evelyn in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09381368 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26989174 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34759745 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This volume has the virtue of airing a number of refreshing voices that are not often heard on this side of the Atlantic, and that bring perspectives that should energize our conversations about information in living systems." --Evelyn Fox Keller, MIT "Terzis and Arp have brought together an international array of experimental and theoretical scientists, philosophers, and cognitive scientists to explore the most consequential notion in modern biology--information. The notion is indispensable to molecular biology, and yet we have no idea how seriously we need to take it in that domain. The role of information is equally central to the origin and maintenance of life in a Second Law-driven world that destroys order. And the naturalization of information is the only bridge that can be crossed from cognitive psychology to neuroscience. All of these issues are faced squarely and accessibly in this important volume." --Alex Rosenberg, Duke University "Since the 1960s at least, it has become clear that we cannot content ourselves with describing living systems, and their life cycles, only in terms of matter and energy. An additional dimension--information--is the necessary complement. However, following an initial enthusiasm for an information-based approach to biology, conceptual developments and practical applications have been slow, to such an extent that doubts have eventually arisen, among biologists and philosophers alike, as to the real relevance, if not the legitimacy, of this approach. How profoundly ill-advised were those concerns is dramatically demonstrated by this excellent collection. Information and Living Systems provides a convincing and healthily fresh overview of this subject area in many of its ramifications, throughout the whole of biology." --Alessandro Minelli, University of Padova "Since the time of the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA and its expression, scientists and philosophers have become increasingly aware that information is integral to the understanding of the organization of life--indeed, to the understanding of life. Information and Living Systems covers the gamut of issues--from the properties of the organism itself to epigenetic and evolutionary considerations to cognition, language, and personality. It transcends in scope and depth any available publications on bioinformation known to me. It is an important scholarly contribution that will interest professional biologists, philosophers, and information theorists, and will be very useful in courses for advanced undergraduate and graduate students.

0.013458293 = product of:
  0.09420805 = sum of:
    0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047104023 = score(doc=5541,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
    0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047104023 = score(doc=5541,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied.

0.008156957 = product of:
  0.057098698 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5536)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5536)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The construction of concepts achieved by the apparently incompatible ideas of essence and context is examined through genre. Essence is defined by essential characteristics: innate, immutable, independent of context. Unlike essences, contexts are fluid, changing with time and location. Genre has the stability of the essential characteristics that define essence and the fluidity of differing circumstances that define context, thus making it effective for the exploration of essence and context. Controlled vocabularies reveal diachronically and synchronically the stable/fluid ambivalence of genre classes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC1, DDC13, DDC23) exhibits stability (and modest fluidity) in the Divisions, the primary reflection of academic disciplines one hierarchical step below the main classes and the development of the standard subdivisions as a slow multi-edition evolution. Genre serves as a lens for us to better understand essences, contexts, and concepts and their manifestations, classes. Rather than being incompatible opposites, essences and contexts complement each other in the definition of concepts. How these abstractions relate to classification is a question both theoretical and practical to our efforts to further knowledge organization.

0.007910378 = product of:
  0.055372648 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 3101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=3101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3101)
    0.029911257 = product of:
      0.059822515 = sum of:
        0.059822515 = weight(_text_:texts in 3101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059822515 = score(doc=3101,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.36342722 = fieldWeight in 3101, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Charles S. Peirce had a theory of information largely ignored by contemporary information theorists. This paper gives an outline of this theory and confronts it with information theories since 1949, Shannon and Weaver's syntactic theory of information, Carnap and Bar-Hillel's logico-semantic theory, and Dretske's cognitive-pragmatic theory of information. In contrast to these more recent theories, Peirce's theory of information is not based on a calculus of probabilities but on one of logical quantities. Furthermore, it does not only study information as growth of knowledge from actual texts or utterances but also as knowledge accumulated in symbols in the course of their history. Peirce takes all three dimensions of semiotics into account without reducing information to any of them: syntax, since it calculates information from the combination of subject and predicate terms of propositions; semantics, since it studies the denotation and signification of symbols; and pragmatics insofar as it studies processes of knowledge acquisition. The specifically semiotic aspect of Peirce's information theory consists in its study of the different effects of icons, indices, and symbols on the growth of words, ideas, and knowledge.

0.0071743615 = product of:
  0.050220527 = sum of:
    0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033948522 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.016272005 = product of:
      0.03254401 = sum of:
        0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03254401 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to organize the extensive field and to compile the complete list of information limits. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough analysis of literature from the field beginning with the 1960s up to the present has been performed. Findings - A universal typology of information limits has been proposed. A list of barriers mentioned in the literature of the subject has been compiled. Research limitations/implications - The term "information limits" is not commonly used. Originality/value - The complete list of information limits with bibliographical hints (helpful for future research) is presented.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

0.0040097926 = product of:
  0.056137092 = sum of:
    0.056137092 = weight(_text_:subject in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056137092 = score(doc=1069,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5227499 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The semiotics of C. S. Peirce presents fundamental concepts to discover aspects of the indexing process, including representation and classes of signs. However, we still know little of its theoretical potential for subject indexing. We believe that the main difficulty in the proposals to understand the process of subject indexing based on Peircean semiotics stems from an incomplete interpretation of his semiotic system. This paper attempts to describe the contributions of Peircean semiotics to subject indexing. First, we analyze some of the concepts of the branches of semiotics, after which, we discuss strategies for conceptual approximation. Secondly, and aiming to raise the level of interlocution between the areas, we intend to argue that subject indexing is an inferential process, as explained by the second branch of semiotics. Thus, we seek to go beyond the level of speculative grammar, the first branch of semiotics, to forge a closer link with pure or critical logic, the second branch. We conclude that the indexer's work does not produce a mere reflection of what already exists in documents, but involves an instigating action to discover, through the inferential matrix, the meaning of a text in order to find the subject and the most a ppropriate subject added entry to the information system.

0.0021547303 = product of:
  0.030166224 = sum of:
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.002054651 = product of:
  0.028765112 = sum of:
    0.028765112 = product of:
      0.057530224 = sum of:
        0.057530224 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057530224 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

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

0.001780432 = product of:
  0.024926046 = sum of:
    0.024926046 = product of:
      0.04985209 = sum of:
        0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04985209 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.302856 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Reading Comprehension tests are commonly used to assess the degree to which people comprehend what they read. This is why we work with the hypothesis that it is reasonable to use these tests to assess the degree to which a machine "comprehends" what it is reading. In this work, we evaluate Question Answering systems using Reading Comprehension tests from exams to enter University. This article analyses the datasets generated, the kind of inferences required, the methodology followed in three evaluation campaigns, the approaches presented by participants and current results. Besides, we study the evolution of systems and the main lessons learned in this evaluation process. We also show how current technologies are unable to pass university-entrance exams. This is because these tests require a deep understanding of texts, as well as detecting the similar meaning of phrases with different words. Future directions focused on these ideas seem more promising than including a massive amount of data for training systems, what has allowed systems to obtain outstanding results in Reading Comprehension tests with more straightforward questions. We think this study helps to increase the knowledge about how to develop better Question Answering systems.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=537,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0012124473 = product of:
  0.016974261 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to show that uncertainty may be caused not only by a knowledge gap in the mind of a user with respect to a given subject or topic, but also by the various complexities associated with the information seeking and retrieval (IS&R) process in a digital environment. Design/methodology/approach - Both quantitative and qualitative studies were conducted to collect data from users in the higher education sector regarding whether or not they experienced uncertainty in relation to the IS&R process. Analysis: a correlation analysis was undertaken to establish whether there were any relationships between information-seeking activities and information-seeking problems. Findings - The findings of this research show that uncertainty existed at different stages of the IS&R process amongst users. It was established that uncertainty was caused by a number of information-seeking activities and information-seeking problems, and that such uncertainty could continue over the course of successive search sessions, leading to the proposal of a new model of uncertainty. Research limitations/implications - The proposed model of uncertainty should contribute to a better understanding of the issues related to IS&R in a digital environment. Practical implications - A number of benefits could be realised in systems design from the application of this model in terms of reducing the negative impact of uncertainty, while at the same time helping users to gain from the positive aspects of uncertainty in IS&R.

0.0012124473 = product of:
  0.016974261 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which Year Seven students, teachers and teacher-librarians, in three rural Australian state schools, would value question formulation as an information literacy skill. Question formulation is defined here as students independently formulating their own questions for curricular assignments. It also aimed to evaluate the extent to which these students would transfer question formulation across subjects and across time. The study used a constructivist grounded theory approach and data were analysed using constructivist grounded analysis. The findings of the study indicated that most students, teachers and teacher-librarians valued question formulation as an information literacy skill, but that this value was often limited in scope, e.g. only in relation to information retrieval. Some students, and most teachers and teacher-librarians, saw extensive value in question formulation and took a more holistic view, e.g. linking question formulation with assignment writing. A small minority of students did not value question formulation as they found it a difficult concept. Students used written questions when required to do so by teachers but some students preferred to develop mental questions when doing assignments. There was some clear evidence of transfer, in that some students applied what they had learned about question formulation in a previous term to a new subject assignment. On the other hand, many other students did not transfer what they had learned, and the evidence showed that this was either because they did not understand the concept of transfer (a small minority), or that they lacked motivation to transfer, or that they expected the teacher and/or teacher-librarian to tell them to formulate their own questions. It was clear from the study that there was no culture of transfer in these schools and that this made it unlikely that students, apart from a well-motivated minority, would transfer skills.

0.0012124473 = product of:
  0.016974261 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 5080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=5080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 5080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5080)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which Year Seven students, teachers and teacher-librarians, in three rural Australian state schools, would value question formulation as an information literacy skill. Question formulation is defined here as students independently formulating their own questions for curricular assignments. It also aimed to evaluate the extent to which these students would transfer question formulation across subjects and across time. The study used a constructivist grounded theory approach and data were analysed using constructivist grounded analysis. The findings of the study indicated that most students, teachers and teacher-librarians valued question formulation as an information literacy skill, but that this value was often limited in scope, e.g. only in relation to information retrieval. Some students, and most teachers and teacher-librarians, saw extensive value in question formulation and took a more holistic view, e.g. linking question formulation with assignment writing. A small minority of students did not value question formulation as they found it a difficult concept. Students used written questions when required to do so by teachers but some students preferred to develop mental questions when doing assignments. There was some clear evidence of transfer, in that some students applied what they had learned about question formulation in a previous term to a new subject assignment. On the other hand, many other students did not transfer what they had learned, and the evidence showed that this was either because they did not understand the concept of transfer (a small minority), or that they lacked motivation to transfer, or that they expected the teacher and/or teacher-librarian to tell them to formulate their own questions. It was clear from the study that there was no culture of transfer in these schools and that this made it unlikely that students, apart from a well-motivated minority, would transfer skills.

0.0010170004 = product of:
  0.014238005 = sum of:
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

0.0010170004 = product of:
  0.014238005 = sum of:
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 4522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=4522,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

1. 1.2019 11:22:34

8.7171455E-4 = product of:
  0.0122040035 = sum of:
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

7.264289E-4 = product of:
  0.010170003 = sum of:
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 5306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=5306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5306, 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=5306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

18. 9.2018 12:57:22

7.264289E-4 = product of:
  0.010170003 = sum of:
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39