Search (191 results, page 1 of 10)

0.12603068 = product of:
  0.3150767 = sum of:
    0.07876918 = product of:
      0.23630753 = sum of:
        0.23630753 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23630753 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36039644 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
    0.23630753 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23630753 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36039644 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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].

0.090021916 = product of:
  0.22505479 = sum of:
    0.056263696 = product of:
      0.16879109 = sum of:
        0.16879109 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16879109 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36039644 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
    0.16879109 = weight(_text_:2f in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16879109 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36039644 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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]

0.090021916 = product of:
  0.22505479 = sum of:
    0.056263696 = product of:
      0.16879109 = sum of:
        0.16879109 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16879109 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36039644 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
    0.16879109 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16879109 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36039644 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

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

0.076876774 = product of:
  0.19219193 = sum of:
    0.17779328 = weight(_text_:strategisches in 1362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17779328 = score(doc=1362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3698822 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.701155 = idf(docFreq=19, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = queryNorm
        0.48067543 = fieldWeight in 1362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.701155 = idf(docFreq=19, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1362)
    0.014398645 = product of:
      0.02879729 = sum of:
        0.02879729 = weight(_text_:22 in 1362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02879729 = score(doc=1362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1362, 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=1362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Wohin entwickelt sich die Informationsgesellschaft? Das hängt unter anderem von der Existenz und Richtigkeit der Informationspolitik ab. Soweit es in Deutschland eine Informationspolitik und dazugehörige Konzepte gegeben hat, waren dies die Fachinformationsprogramme des BMFT, später BMBF. Dieses verfügte gegenüber den anderen Bunderessorts auch über eine federführende Kompetenz. In Nachfolge der diversen Fachinformationsprogramme der Bundesregierung hat das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) unter dem Titel 'Information vernetzen - Wissen aktivieren" ein "strategisches Positionspapier... zur Zukunft der wissenschaftlichen Information in Deutschland" verfasst (Password 10+ 11/2002). Als Basis dazu sollte ein Arthur D. Little-Gutachten zur 'Zukunft der wissenschaftlichen und technischen Information in Deutschland" dienen. Die mögliche Bedeutung des BMBFPositionspapiers ist nicht zu unterschätzen und geht auch angesichts des Fehlen weiterer konzeptioneller Papiere politischer Handlungsträger im Bereich der Informationspolitik weit über den Bereich der unmittelbar behandelten wissenschaftlichtechnischen Information hinaus. Nachdem sich bislang, soweit bekannt, keine beurteilende Stimme in der Öffentlichkeit erhob und angesprochene mögliche Autoren abwinkten oder nicht geantwortet haben, muss PASSWORD wohl wieder an die Front. Der erste Versuch einer Bewertung des Positionspapiers ist stark kriterienabhängig und fällt nach dem Anlegen von fünf Maßstäben insgesamt ambivalent aus. Auf die Arthur D. Little-Studie (ADL), die allerdings weitgehend skeptisch zu sehen ist, wird im folgenden eher nebenbei eingegangen. Diese ist im Vergleich zur Beurteilung des Positionspapiers von minderer Bedeutung, da sich das Positionspapier nicht zwingend aus dem ADL-Papier ergibt und nicht das "Vorprodukt" (A DL), sondern das "Endprodukt" (Positionspapier) für die Umsetzung des beabsichtigten Förderprogramms entscheidend sein dürfte.

Date

22. 2.2003 12:30:50

0.034438718 = product of:
  0.17219359 = sum of:
    0.17219359 = weight(_text_:inc in 4045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17219359 = score(doc=4045,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2573945 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = queryNorm
        0.6689871 = fieldWeight in 4045, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4045)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information, Inc.

0.03106705 = product of:
  0.15533525 = sum of:
    0.15533525 = sum of:
      0.07470285 = weight(_text_:management in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07470285 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.521365 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.0806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0806324 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.5, S.373-383

0.02661117 = product of:
  0.13305585 = sum of:
    0.13305585 = sum of:
      0.075461276 = weight(_text_:management in 5735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.075461276 = score(doc=5735,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.5266582 = fieldWeight in 5735, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5735)
      0.05759458 = weight(_text_:22 in 5735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05759458 = score(doc=5735,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5735, 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=5735)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses information in the context of information resources management arguing that it is an essential resource for every organization but one that needs to be managed better. Examines information as a resource, as an asset, as a commodity, as a rubbish

Source

Managing information. 3(1996) no.6, S.22-23

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.02661117 = product of:
  0.13305585 = sum of:
    0.13305585 = sum of:
      0.075461276 = weight(_text_:management in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.075461276 = score(doc=2277,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.5266582 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.05759458 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05759458 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, 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=2277)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

Footnote

Thematisierung der Verschiebung des Verständnisses von Wissensmanagement; vgl. auch: Day, R.E.: Totality and representation: a history of knowledge management ... in: JASIS 52(2001) no.9, S.725-735

0.026290072 = product of:
  0.13145036 = sum of:
    0.13145036 = sum of:
      0.08537469 = weight(_text_:management in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08537469 = score(doc=668,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
      0.04607566 = weight(_text_:22 in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04607566 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 668, 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=668)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

While knowledge management is seen to be the biggest thing to hit the information profession since the Internet, the concept is surrounded by confusion. Traces the progress of knowledge on the information continuum which extends from data to informed decision. The reason for which knowledge management has suddenly become inluential is that its principal proponents now are not information professionals but management consultants seeking to retain their intellectual capital. Explains the reasons for this, the practical meaning of knowledge management and what information professionals should be doing to take advantage of the vogue

Source

Information world review. 1997, no.130, S.22

0.025022058 = product of:
  0.12511028 = sum of:
    0.12511028 = sum of:
      0.09055354 = weight(_text_:management in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09055354 = score(doc=909,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.63198984 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
      0.034556746 = weight(_text_:22 in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034556746 = score(doc=909,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 909, 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=909)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The emergence of Knowledge Management (KM) over the last decade has triggered the question how or even whether this new management discipline can be distinguished from the established field of Information Management (IM). In this paper we critically examine this demarcation issue from two angles. First we will investigate to what extent the difference between IM and KM can be anchored an a conceptual distinction between their respective objects: information and knowledge. After having shown that this widely adopted strategy promises little success, we will shift our attention to an examination of the fundamental objectives or guiding principles behind both disciplines. Seen from this angle we argue that KM in order to foster organizational learning, innovation and strategy flexibility, should adopt a postmodern epistemological perspective that is geared to the management of incommensurability and difference within and between organizations.

Series

Advances in knowledge management; vol.1

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.020663233 = product of:
  0.103316166 = sum of:
    0.103316166 = weight(_text_:inc in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103316166 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2573945 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = queryNorm
        0.40139228 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information Inc.

0.020663233 = product of:
  0.103316166 = sum of:
    0.103316166 = weight(_text_:inc in 1910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103316166 = score(doc=1910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2573945 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = queryNorm
        0.40139228 = fieldWeight in 1910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1910)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Im folgenden Aufsatz werden ausgewählte Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Befragung von 1.385 Wissenschaftlern deutscher Hochschulen und außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen präsentiert. Die Befragung wurde im Jahr 2001 durchgeführt und war Teil des Auftrages zur Entwicklung eines Strategiekonzepts zur Zukunft der wissenschaftlichen und technischen Information. Das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung hatte Ende 2000 diesen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsauftrag an Arthur D. Little International, Inc. und die Gesellschaft für Innovationsforschung und Beratung mbH erteilt. Ziel der Befragungen war es u.a. die Anforderungen der Nutzer an einen effizienten Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen und technischen Informationen zu erheben, den gegenwärtigen Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen und technischen Informationen sowie die damit verbundenen Probleme und induzierten Folgekosten zu bewerten, und Maßnahmen abzuleiten, die künftig die höchsten Effizienzsteigerungen versprechen. Neben den Problemen des Informationszugangs beschäftigte sich die Untersuchung auch mit der Rolle der Wissenschaftler als Autoren bzw. Erzeuger wissenschaftlicher und technischer Informationen.

0.015533525 = product of:
  0.077667624 = sum of:
    0.077667624 = sum of:
      0.037351426 = weight(_text_:management in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037351426 = score(doc=6964,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 6964, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6964)
      0.0403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0403162 = score(doc=6964,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6964, 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=6964)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

25.12.2001 13:22:30

Series

The McGraw-Hill information systems, management and strategy series

0.015063788 = product of:
  0.07531894 = sum of:
    0.07531894 = sum of:
      0.052281108 = weight(_text_:management in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052281108 = score(doc=2596,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.3648795 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.02303783 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02303783 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose In contrast to the interest of describing and managing the social processes of knowing, information science and information and knowledge management research have put less emphasis on discussing how particular information becomes usable and how it is used in different contexts and situations. The purpose of this paper is to address this major gap, and introduce and discuss the applicability of the notion of situational appropriation of information for shedding light on this particular process in the context of daily information work practices of professionals. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the analysis of 25 qualitative interviews of archives, library and museum professionals conducted in two Nordic countries. Findings The study presents examples of how individuals appropriate different tangible and intangible assets as information on the basis of the situation in hand. Research limitations/implications The study proposes a new conceptual tool for articulating and conducting research on the process how information becomes useful in the situation in hand. Practical implications The situational appropriation of information perspective redefines the role of information management to incorporate a comprehensive awareness of the situations when information is useful and is being used. A better understanding how information becomes useful in diverse situations helps to discern the active role of contextual and situational effects and to exploit and take them into account as a part of the management of information and knowledge processes. Originality/value In contrast to orthodoxies of information science and information and knowledge management research, the notion of situational appropriation of information represents an alternative approach to the conceptualisation of information utilisation. It helps to frame particular types of instances of information use that are not necessarily addressed within the objectivistic, information seeker or learning oriented paradigms of information and knowledge management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.5, S.492-504

0.013314451 = product of:
  0.06657226 = sum of:
    0.06657226 = sum of:
      0.03201551 = weight(_text_:management in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03201551 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.034556746 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034556746 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042509552 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, 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=479)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Anthropological inquiry suggests that all societies classify animals and plants in similar ways. Paradoxically, in the same cultures that have seen large advances in biological science, citizenry's practical knowledge of nature has dramatically diminished. Here we describe historical, cross-cultural and developmental research on how people ordinarily conceptualize organic nature (folkbiology), concentrating on cognitive consequences associated with knowledge devolution. We show that results on psychological studies of categorization and reasoning from "standard populations" fail to generalize to humanity at large. Usual populations (Euro-American college students) have impoverished experience with nature, which yields misleading results about knowledge acquisition and the ontogenetic relationship between folkbiology and folkpsychology. We also show that groups living in the same habitat can manifest strikingly distinct behaviors, cognitions and social relations relative to it. This has novel implications for environmental decision making and management, including commons problems.

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.013032165 = product of:
  0.065160826 = sum of:
    0.065160826 = product of:
      0.13032165 = sum of:
        0.13032165 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13032165 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:01:22

0.01056458 = product of:
  0.052822895 = sum of:
    0.052822895 = product of:
      0.10564579 = sum of:
        0.10564579 = weight(_text_:management in 3420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10564579 = score(doc=3420,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.73732144 = fieldWeight in 3420, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.010456222 = product of:
  0.052281108 = sum of:
    0.052281108 = product of:
      0.104562216 = sum of:
        0.104562216 = weight(_text_:management in 2921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.104562216 = score(doc=2921,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.729759 = fieldWeight in 2921, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The concept of knowledge management is becoming increasingly prevalent in academic and vocational literature. Reviews the conceptual foundations of knowledge management starting with a conceptual clarification of knowledge relative to data and information. Discusses the characteristics in terms of forms, levels and categories of knowlegde. Against this background seeks a definition of knowledge management which is compared with information management

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.009774125 = product of:
  0.048870623 = sum of:
    0.048870623 = product of:
      0.097741246 = sum of:
        0.097741246 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097741246 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

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

0.009242082 = product of:
  0.04621041 = sum of:
    0.04621041 = product of:
      0.09242082 = sum of:
        0.09242082 = weight(_text_:management in 3185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09242082 = score(doc=3185,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.6450219 = fieldWeight in 3185, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

LCSH

Knowledge management

Subject

Knowledge management

Theme

Information Resources Management