Search (217 results, page 1 of 11)

0.13723119 = product of:
  0.34307796 = sum of:
    0.08576949 = product of:
      0.25730845 = sum of:
        0.25730845 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25730845 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39242527 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
    0.25730845 = weight(_text_:2f in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25730845 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39242527 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = 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].

0.09802227 = product of:
  0.24505566 = sum of:
    0.061263915 = product of:
      0.18379174 = sum of:
        0.18379174 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18379174 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39242527 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
    0.18379174 = weight(_text_:2f in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18379174 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39242527 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = 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]

0.09802227 = product of:
  0.24505566 = sum of:
    0.061263915 = product of:
      0.18379174 = sum of:
        0.18379174 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18379174 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39242527 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
    0.18379174 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18379174 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39242527 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = 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_

0.054972053 = product of:
  0.13743013 = sum of:
    0.118616216 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118616216 = score(doc=2994,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.616327 = fieldWeight in 2994, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2994)
    0.01881392 = product of:
      0.03762784 = sum of:
        0.03762784 = weight(_text_:22 in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03762784 = score(doc=2994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2994, 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=2994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

When modelling pieces of unstructured information, such as full text forms, it is often necessary to recognize them based on a semantic principle, through which properties of information can be derived. Since there are several semantic principles that are related to each other, the resulting properties are also mutually relevant. This relevance is called 'relativity of concepts', whose modelling is indispensible to dealing exclusively with such properties of information that are invariant under the change of the underlying semantic principles. This paper uses the self-structured semantic relationship model to account for the relativity of concepts. More specifically, a set of local views rather than a single global view are introduced to the model, which greatly enhances the flexibility of the model's expressive power. Furthermore, semantic equivalence between the view-based information structures is also formalized in the proposed model. This truns out to be useful when integrating pieces of information that are structure based on different principles

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.1, S.22-30

0.04946837 = product of:
  0.12367092 = sum of:
    0.052941877 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052941877 = score(doc=2127,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
    0.07072904 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07072904 = score(doc=2127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.36750638 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Outlines the principles underlying the theory of polyrepresentation applied to the user's cognitive space and the information space of information retrieval systems, set in a cognitive framework. Uses polyrepresentation to represent the current user's information needs, problem states, and domain work tasks or interests in a structure of causality, as well as to embody semantic full text entities by means of the principle of 'intentional redundancy'

0.047907133 = product of:
  0.11976783 = sum of:
    0.0884113 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0884113 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.45938298 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
    0.031356532 = product of:
      0.062713064 = sum of:
        0.062713064 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062713064 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

0.04001039 = product of:
  0.20005195 = sum of:
    0.20005195 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20005195 = score(doc=1478,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        1.0394651 = fieldWeight in 1478, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1478)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Semantic information processing. Ed.: M. Minsky

0.039013553 = product of:
  0.09753388 = sum of:
    0.066177346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066177346 = score(doc=1201,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
    0.031356532 = product of:
      0.062713064 = sum of:
        0.062713064 = weight(_text_:22 in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062713064 = score(doc=1201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1201, 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=1201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

15. 7.2002 14:22:55

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems / Social aspects

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems / Social aspects

0.036400042 = product of:
  0.0910001 = sum of:
    0.04679445 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04679445 = score(doc=1514,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1514, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1514)
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=1514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 1514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1514)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Starts from the premise that meaning is not an intrinsic property of information items. Approaches to 'meaning' in diverse humanities disciplines, including philosophy, psychology, and the history of arts and music, are drawn on to enhance the understanding of meaning in the context of multimedia information retrieval on the Internet. The approaches described include philosophy of language and meaning, psychology of language including repertory grids and semantic differential, iconography and levels of meaning, and representation of music. A consistent theme in all these disciplines is the recognition that meaning is context dependent and may be analyzed at a variety of different levels, with nomenclature and number of levels varying across disciplines. Identifies the strengths and weaknesses of searching and retrieval on the Internet with particular emphasis on subject content and meaning. It shows the limitations of searching using the most basic level of meaning, while attempting to cater for a wide diversity of information resources and users. Recommends enhanced retrieval interfaces linked to the needs of specific user groups and the characteristics of specific media on the Internet

0.032449383 = product of:
  0.08112346 = sum of:
    0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028076671 = score(doc=3111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3111)
    0.05304678 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05304678 = score(doc=3111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.2756298 = fieldWeight in 3111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3111)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Information Science (IS) is commonly said to study collection, classification, storage, retrieval, and use of information. However, there is no consensus on what information is. This article examines some of the formal models of information and informational processes, namely, Situation Theory and Shannon's Information Theory, in terms of their suitability for providing a useful framework for studying information in IS. It is argued that formal models of information are concerned with mainly ontological aspects of information, whereas IS, because of its evaluative role with respect to semantic content, needs an epistemological conception of information. It is argued from this perspective that concepts of epistemological/aesthetic/ethical information are plausible, and that information science needs to rise to the challenge of studying many different conceptions of information embedded in different contexts. This goal requires exploration of a wide variety of tools from philosophy and logic.

0.03198837 = product of:
  0.079970926 = sum of:
    0.01871778 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01871778 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
    0.06125315 = weight(_text_:semantic in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06125315 = score(doc=838,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.31826988 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

As an answer to the humanistic, socially oriented critique of the information-processing paradigms used as a conceptual frame for library information science, this article formulates a broader and less objective concept of communication than that of the information-processing paradigm. Knowledge can be seen as the mental phenomenon that documents (combining signs into text, depending on the state of knowledge of the recipient) can cause through interpretation. The examination of these "correct circumstances" is an important part of information science. This article represents the following developments in the concept of information: Information is understood as potential until somebody interprets it. The objective carriers of potential knowledge are signs. Signs need interpretation to release knowledge in the form of interpretants. Interpretation is based on the total semantic network, horizons, worldviews, and experience of the person, including the emotional and social aspects. The realm of meaning is rooted in social-historical as well as embodied evolutionary processes that go beyond computational algorithmically logic. The semantic network derives a decisive aspect of signification from a person's embodied cultural worldview, which, in turn, derives from, develops, and has its roots in undefined tacit knowledge. To theoretically encompass both the computational and the semantic aspects of document classification and retrieval, we need to combine the cybernetic functionalistic approach with the semiotic pragmatic understanding of meaning as social and embodied. For such a marriage, it is necessary to go into the constructivistic second-order cybernetics and autopoiesis theory of von Foerster, Maturana, and Luhmann, on the one hand, and the pragmatic triadic semiotics of Peirce in the form of the embodied Biosemiotics, on the other hand. This combination is what I call Cybersemiotics.

0.028291617 = product of:
  0.14145808 = sum of:
    0.14145808 = weight(_text_:semantic in 5512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14145808 = score(doc=5512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.73501277 = fieldWeight in 5512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5512)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.027492309 = product of:
  0.06873077 = sum of:
    0.01871778 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01871778 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
    0.050012987 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050012987 = score(doc=1064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.25986627 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The organization of information and the process of seeking information are fundamental activities, and thus fields of study, related to library and information science (LIS). Both endeavors are pragmatic in the sense that the ideas of information seeking behavior and the process of organizing information relates to some ideas of how users tend to behave when information is needed in order to fulfill a task of some kind. An important difference is, however, that information systems are primarily driven by principles of semantic structure, whereas users are driven by genuine information needs. Knowledge organization (KO), which is considered a subfield within LIS, has a particular focus on the organization of semantic units, and their relations (Hjørland 2008; Hodge 2000; Thellefsen 2010), however, it is our impression that the users information need, even though acknowledged, often is neglected or only mentioned en passant. The concept of information need is a core concept in LIS, and is, in particular, a core concept within the subfield of information retrieval (IR) that describes the state of uncertainty or anomalous knowledge state that precedes a user's information seeking behavior. Information need is, however, an intricate concept, and is only addressed in the LIS literature as some kind of elusive cognitive state. One may ask 'is an information need always individual or personal, and under what circumstances?' The present paper argues that the concept of information need may profit from a pragmatic and semeiotic perspective, which also may prove fruitful for KO. The paper thus discusses the concept of information need through three premises that is formulated based in Peirce's pragmatic semeiotic: 1) as the intricate relation between believe and doubt, 2) as a pragmatic process of clarification, and 3) as an activity of cognition taking place within a universe of discourse. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how this semeiotic analysis can be useful for KO.

0.027113868 = product of:
  0.06778467 = sum of:
    0.032420147 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032420147 = score(doc=5379,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 5379, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5379)
    0.03536452 = weight(_text_:semantic in 5379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03536452 = score(doc=5379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.18375319 = fieldWeight in 5379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5379)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.02704115 = product of:
  0.06760287 = sum of:
    0.023397226 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023397226 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.

0.025008315 = product of:
  0.06252079 = sum of:
    0.03743556 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03743556 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
    0.025085226 = product of:
      0.05017045 = sum of:
        0.05017045 = weight(_text_:22 in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05017045 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3558, 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=3558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The history of encyclopedias and wholly new forms of encyclopedias are briefly reviewed. The possibilities and problems that hypertext presents as a basis for new forms of encyclopedias are explored. The capabilities of current systems, both experimental and commercially available, are outlined, focusing on new possibilities for authoring and design and for reading the retrieval. Examples of applications already making use of hypertext are given.

Date

7. 1.1996 22:47:52

0.024755163 = product of:
  0.12377582 = sum of:
    0.12377582 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12377582 = score(doc=1337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.64313614 = fieldWeight in 1337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1337)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.023408132 = product of:
  0.05852033 = sum of:
    0.03970641 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03970641 = score(doc=2090,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
    0.01881392 = product of:
      0.03762784 = sum of:
        0.03762784 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03762784 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2090, 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=2090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In order to test how associated verbal and spatial stimuli are processed in memory, undergraduates studied a reference map as either an intact unit or as a series of individual features, and read a text containing facts related to map features. In Addition, the map was presented either before or after reading the text. Seeing the intact map prior to the text led to better recall of both map information and facts from the text. These results support a dual coding modell, where stimuli such as maps possess a retrieval advantage because they allow simultaneous representation in working memory. This advantage occurs because information from the map can be used to cue retrieval of associated verbal facts, without exceeding the processing constraints of the memorial system

Date

22. 7.2000 19:18:18

0.023408132 = product of:
  0.05852033 = sum of:
    0.03970641 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03970641 = score(doc=3675,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
    0.01881392 = product of:
      0.03762784 = sum of:
        0.03762784 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03762784 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3675, 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=3675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article is about the mental coding processes involved in the flow of 'information' when the user is interacting with an 'enabling' information retrieval system. An 'enabling' IR system is designed to stimulate the user's grasping towards a higher understanding of the information need / problem / task that brought the user to the IR system. C. Shannon's (1949/1959) model of the flow of information and K.R. Popper's (1975) 3 worlds concept are used to diagram the flow of information between the user and system when the user receives a stimulating massage, with particluar emphasis on the decoding and encoding operations involved as the user processes the message. The key difference between the model of information flow proposed here and the linear transmission, receiver-oriented model now in use is that we assume that users of a truly interactive, 'enabling' IR system are primarily message senders, not passive receivers of the message, because they must create a new message back to the system, absed on a reconceptualization of their information need, while they are 'online' interacting with the system

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

0.021882275 = product of:
  0.054705687 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.021949572 = product of:
      0.043899145 = sum of:
        0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043899145 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57