Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0131395515 = product of:
  0.10511641 = sum of:
    0.10511641 = weight(_text_:supported in 7041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10511641 = score(doc=7041,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.45803228 = fieldWeight in 7041, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7041)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The study sought to ascertain the current usage and status of CD-ROM databases in academic libraries. The survey asked libraries how many CD-ROM databases they own or subscribe to, how these are paid for, which titles are held, and how many workstations are supported. Libraries were also asked about usage and cost of CD-ROMs; and related ares were explored. Questions were asked about the use of online information retrieval and expenditures for the years 1989-1990 and 1984-1985. Statistical analysis was used to determine if there has been a significant change in these categories over the time period in question. Finally libraries were asked if they had cancelled print sources as a result of online or CD-ROM availability

0.008830121 = product of:
  0.07064097 = sum of:
    0.07064097 = weight(_text_:work in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07064097 = score(doc=4410,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4966643 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - To examine work on phenomenology and determine what information studies can learn and use from that work. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis of pioneering work in phenomenology (including that of Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur, and others), application of such ideas as intentionality and being in information studies work, and the potential for greater application of the information seeker as other. Findings - The literature on phenomenology contains thought that is directly relevant to information studies and information work. Close examination of perception, intentionality, and interpretation is integral to individuals' activities related to searching for and retrieving information, determining relevance, and using technology. Essential to the realization of phenomenology's potential is adoption of communication by dialogue so that an information seeker is able both to conceptualize need and to articulate that need. Some promising work in information studies demonstrates an openness to the ongoing and continuous perceptual experiences of information seekers and the relation of that process of perceiving to the growth of knowledge. Originality/value - Offers a different way of thinking about human-information relationships and the ways that information professionals can interact with information seekers.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 1328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=1328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 1328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1328)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The politicization of science is not a new phenomenon, but the disputes surrounding global climate change have been particularly subject to ideological positioning. The work conducted by researchers on the description of, and possible causes for, climate change is reflected in the formal record of scientific discourse. The political and ideological claims about climate change are themselves reflected in the governmental and popular records. With regard to the particular work by Michael Mann and his colleagues, the three records (scientific, governmental, and popular) collide. Close examination of the totality of the record demonstrates the background, nature, and bases of claims made on all sides. The examination further demonstrates that the governmental and popular records are informed not by scientific research and communication but by ideological stances.

0.00576781 = product of:
  0.04614248 = sum of:
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

From the perspective of semiotics, "information" is an ambiguous theoretical concept because the word is used to represent both signifier and signified, both text and content. Using the work of Fernand de Saussure, this paper explores theoretical possibilities that open by virtue of understanding information as sign. Of particular interest is the way semiotics suggests ways to bridge the theoretical gap between information as thing and information as cognitive phenomenon by positing information as a cultural phenomenon.

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 1762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=1762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 1762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1762)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide a critical reply to Robert Lingard's close reading of a previously published paper of the present author's, "Meaning, truth, and information." Design/methodology/approach - The approach adopted in this paper is an examination of Lingard's argument and counter-points, employing (primarily) logical and rhetorical analysis of his claims. Findings - While some of Lingard's criticisms are legitimate and must be admitted, many have to be subjected to rebuttal on the basis of misreading, logical error, and discursive misapprehension of points made in the original article. Originality/value - Since the present paper is a reply to another author's work, originality is constrained by the arguments and claims made by that author. That said, additional analysis is added to the matters of meaning, truth, and information in an effort to clarify and expand upon the essence of the original article.

0.00328138 = product of:
  0.02625104 = sum of:
    0.02625104 = product of:
      0.05250208 = sum of:
        0.05250208 = weight(_text_:22 in 4928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05250208 = score(doc=4928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4928, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 22(1996) no.2, S.111-117

0.002883905 = product of:
  0.02307124 = sum of:
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 3944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=3944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 3944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3944)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update and review the concept of warrant in Library and Information Science (LIS) and to introduce the concept of epistemic warrant from philosophy. Epistemic warrant can be used to assess the content of a work; and therefore, it can be a complement to existing warrants, such as literary warrant, in the development of controlled vocabularies. In this proposal, the authors aim to activate a theoretical discussion on warrant in order to revise and improve the validity of the concept of warrant from the user and classifier context to the classificationist context. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted an extensive literary review and close reading of the concept of warrant in LIS and knowledge organization in order to detect the different stances and gaps in which the concept of epistemic warrant might apply. The authors adopted an epistemological approach, in the vein of some of the previous commenters on warrant, such as Hope Olson and Birger Hjørland, and built upon the theoretical framework of different authors working with the concept of warrant outside knowledge organization, such as Alvin Plantinga and Alvin Goldman. Findings There are some authors and critics in the literature that have voiced for a more epistemological approach to warrant (in opposition to a predominantly ontological approach). In this sense, epistemic warrant would be an epistemological warrant and also a step forward toward pragmatism in a prominently empiricist context such as the justification of the inclusion of terms in a controlled vocabulary. Epistemic warrant can be used to complement literary warrant in the development of controlled vocabularies as well as in the classification of works. Originality/value This paper presents an exhaustive update and revision of the concept of warrant, analyzing, systematizing, and reviewing the different warrants discussed in the LIS literary warrant in a critical way. The concept of epistemic warrant for categorizational activities is introduced to the LIS field for the first time. This paper, and the proposal of epistemic warrant, has the potential to contribute to the theoretical and practical discussions on the development of controlled vocabularies and assessment of the content of works.