-
Popper, K.R.: Three worlds : the Tanner lecture on human values. Deliverd at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978 (1978)
0.20
0.20046763 = product of:
0.3341127 = sum of:
0.05307898 = product of:
0.2653949 = sum of:
0.2653949 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.2653949 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.2653949 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.2653949 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
0.01563882 = weight(_text_:of in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01563882 = score(doc=230,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- In this lecture I intend to challenge those who uphold a monist or even a dualist view of the universe; and I will propose, instead, a pluralist view. I will propose a view of the universe that recognizes at least three different but interacting sub-universes.
- Source
- https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H
-
Ishikawa, S.: ¬A final solution to the mind-body problem by quantum language (2017)
0.19
0.19265655 = product of:
0.24082068 = sum of:
0.02231161 = product of:
0.11155804 = sum of:
0.11155804 = weight(_text_:problem in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11155804 = score(doc=3666,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.6291675 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084348574 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013543615 = score(doc=3666,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
0.12061687 = product of:
0.24123374 = sum of:
0.24123374 = weight(_text_:mind in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.24123374 = score(doc=3666,freq=10.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.92519844 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.8 = coord(4/5)
- Abstract
- Recently we proposed "quantum language", which was not only characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics but also the linguistic turn of Descartes = Kant epistemology. And further we believe that quantum language is the only scientifically successful theory in dualistic idealism. If this turn is regarded as progress in the history of western philosophy (i.e., if "philosophical progress" is defined by "approaching to quantum language"), we should study the linguistic mind-body problem more than the epistemological mind-body problem. In this paper, we show that to solve the mind-body problem and to propose "measurement axiom" in quantum language are equivalent. Since our approach is always within dualistic idealism, we believe that our linguistic answer is the only true solution to the mind-body problem.
- Source
- Journal of quantum information science. 7(2017) no.2, S.48 [http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=76391]
-
Open MIND (2015)
0.18
0.17599508 = product of:
0.29332513 = sum of:
0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070290476 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
0.014930432 = weight(_text_:of in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014930432 = score(doc=1648,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
0.20810422 = sum of:
0.179805 = weight(_text_:mind in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.179805 = score(doc=1648,freq=8.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.68960214 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028299233 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, 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=1648)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- This is an edited collection of 39 original papers and as many commentaries and replies. The target papers and replies were written by senior members of the MIND Group, while all commentaries were written by junior group members. All papers and commentaries have undergone a rigorous process of anonymous peer review, during which the junior members of the MIND Group acted as reviewers. The final versions of all the target articles, commentaries and replies have undergone additional editorial review. Besides offering a cross-section of ongoing, cutting-edge research in philosophy and cognitive science, this collection is also intended to be a free electronic resource for teaching. It therefore also contains a selection of online supporting materials, pointers to video and audio files and to additional free material supplied by the 92 authors represented in this volume. We will add more multimedia material, a searchable literature database, and tools to work with the online version in the future. All contributions to this collection are strictly open access. They can be downloaded, printed, and reproduced by anyone.
- Date
- 27. 1.2015 11:48:22
- Imprint
- Frankfurt am Main : MIND Group
-
Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014)
0.16
0.15923695 = product of:
0.39809236 = sum of:
0.066348724 = product of:
0.33174363 = sum of:
0.33174363 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.33174363 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.33174363 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.33174363 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
-
Prokop, M.: Hans Jonas and the phenomenological continuity of life and mind (2022)
0.13
0.12834376 = product of:
0.21390626 = sum of:
0.09940575 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09940575 = score(doc=1048,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.43116745 = fieldWeight in 1048, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1048)
0.024598021 = weight(_text_:of in 1048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024598021 = score(doc=1048,freq=38.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 1048, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1048)
0.0899025 = product of:
0.179805 = sum of:
0.179805 = weight(_text_:mind in 1048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.179805 = score(doc=1048,freq=8.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.68960214 = fieldWeight in 1048, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1048)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- This paper offers a novel interpretation of Hans Jonas' analysis of metabolism, the centrepiece of Jonas' philosophy of organism, in relation to recent controversies regarding the phenomenological dimension of life-mind continuity as understood within 'autopoietic' enactivism (AE). Jonas' philosophy of organism chiefly inspired AE's development of what we might call 'the phenomenological life-mind continuity thesis' (PLMCT), the claim that certain phenomenological features of human experience are central to a proper scientific understanding of both life and mind, and as such central features of all living organisms. After discussing the understanding of PLMCT within AE, and recent criticisms thereof, I develop a reading of Jonas' analysis of metabolism, in light of previous commentators, which emphasizes its systematicity and transcendental flavour. The central thought is that, for Jonas, the attribution of certain phenomenological features is a necessary precondition for our understanding of the possibility of metabolism, rather than being derivable from metabolism itself. I argue that my interpretation strengthens Jonas' contribution to AE's justification for ascribing certain phenomenological features to life across the board. However, it also emphasises the need to complement Jonas' analysis with an explanatory account of organic identity in order to vindicate these phenomenological ascriptions in a scientific context.
-
Beebe, N.H.F.: ¬A complete bibliography of the Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie (2019)
0.09
0.087663665 = product of:
0.21915916 = sum of:
0.19681333 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19681333 = score(doc=3991,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.853668 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022345824 = score(doc=3991,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
-
Halpin, H.; Hayes, P.J.: When owl:sameAs isn't the same : an analysis of identity links on the Semantic Web (2010)
0.07
0.071265064 = product of:
0.1187751 = sum of:
0.014111101 = product of:
0.0705555 = sum of:
0.0705555 = weight(_text_:problem in 4834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0705555 = score(doc=4834,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.39792046 = fieldWeight in 4834, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4834)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 4834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084348574 = score(doc=4834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 4834, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4834)
0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 4834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02031542 = score(doc=4834,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4834, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4834)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- In Linked Data, the use of owl:sameAs is ubiquitous in 'inter-linking' data-sets. However, there is a lurking suspicion within the Linked Data community that this use of owl:sameAs may be somehow incorrect, in particular with regards to its interactions with inference. In fact, owl:sameAs can be considered just one type of 'identity link', a link that declares two items to be identical in some fashion. After reviewing the definitions and history of the problem of identity in philosophy and knowledge representation, we outline four alternative readings of owl:sameAs, showing with examples how it is being (ab)used on the Web of data. Then we present possible solutions to this problem by introducing alternative identity links that rely on named graphs.
- Source
- Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2010). Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web. Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010. Edited by Christian Bizer et al
-
Allo, P.; Baumgaertner, B.; D'Alfonso, S.; Fresco, N.; Gobbo, F.; Grubaugh, C.; Iliadis, A.; Illari, P.; Kerr, E.; Primiero, G.; Russo, F.; Schulz, C.; Taddeo, M.; Turilli, M.; Vakarelov, O.; Zenil, H.: ¬The philosophy of information : an introduction (2013)
0.06
0.06479093 = product of:
0.16197732 = sum of:
0.14609602 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14609602 = score(doc=3380,freq=24.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.63368416 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
0.015881298 = weight(_text_:of in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015881298 = score(doc=3380,freq=44.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.24311234 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
44.0 = termFreq=44.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In April 2010, Bill Gates gave a talk at MIT in which he asked: 'are the brightest minds working on the most important problems?' Gates meant improving the lives of the poorest; improving education, health, and nutrition. We could easily add improving peaceful interactions, human rights, environmental conditions, living standards and so on. Philosophy of Information (PI) proponents think that Gates has a point - but this doesn't mean we should all give up philosophy. Philosophy can be part of this project, because philosophy understood as conceptual design forges and refines the new ideas, theories, and perspectives that we need to understand and address these important problems that press us so urgently. Of course, this naturally invites us to wonder which ideas, theories, and perspectives philosophers should be designing now. In our global information society, many crucial challenges are linked to information and communication technologies: the constant search for novel solutions and improvements demands, in turn, changing conceptual resources to understand and cope with them. Rapid technological development now pervades communication, education, work, entertainment, industrial production and business, healthcare, social relations and armed conflicts. There is a rich mine of philosophical work to do on the new concepts created right here, right now.
Philosophy "done informationally" has been around a long time, but PI as a discipline is quite new. PI takes age-old philosophical debates and engages them with up-to-the minute conceptual issues generated by our ever-changing, information-laden world. This alters the philosophical debates, and makes them interesting to many more people - including many philosophically-minded people who aren't subscribing philosophers. We, the authors, are young researchers who think of our work as part of PI, taking this engaged approach. We're excited by it and want to teach it. Students are excited by it and want to study it. Writing a traditional textbook takes a while, and PI is moving quickly. A traditional textbook doesn't seem like the right approach for the philosophy of the information age. So we got together to take a new approach, team-writing this electronic text to make it available more rapidly and openly.
Here, we introduce PI now. We cover core ideas, explaining how they relate both to traditional philosophy, and to the conceptual issues arising all over the place - such as in computer science, AI, natural and social sciences, as well as in popular culture. This is the first version, for 2013. Next year we'll tell you about PI 2014. We hope you love PI as much as we do! If so, let us have your feedback, and come back in 2014. Maybe some of you will ultimately join us as researchers. Either way, enjoy it. Yours, Patrick, Bert, Simon, Nir, Federico, Carson, Phyllis, Andrew, Eric, Giuseppe, Federica, Christoph, Mariarosaria, Matteo, Orlin, and Hector.
- Content
- Vgl. auch unter: http://www.socphilinfo.org/teaching/book-pi-intro: "This book serves as the main reference for an undergraduate course on Philosophy of Information. The book is written to be accessible to the typical undergraduate student of Philosophy and does not require propaedeutic courses in Logic, Epistemology or Ethics. Each chapter includes a rich collection of references for the student interested in furthering her understanding of the topics reviewed in the book. The book covers all the main topics of the Philosophy of Information and it should be considered an overview and not a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of a philosophical area. As a consequence, 'The Philosophy of Information: a Simple Introduction' does not contain research material as it is not aimed at graduate students or researchers. The book is available for free in multiple formats and it is updated every twelve months by the team of the p Research Network: Patrick Allo, Bert Baumgaertner, Anthony Beavers, Simon D'Alfonso, Penny Driscoll, Luciano Floridi, Nir Fresco, Carson Grubaugh, Phyllis Illari, Eric Kerr, Giuseppe Primiero, Federica Russo, Christoph Schulz, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Matteo Turilli, Orlin Vakarelov. (*) The version for 2013 is now available as a pdf. The content of this version will soon be integrated in the redesign of the teaching-section. The beta-version from last year will provisionally remain accessible through the Table of Content on this page."
-
Aslam, S.; Sonkar, S.K.: Semantic Web : an overview (2019)
0.05
0.053832557 = product of:
0.13458139 = sum of:
0.11246476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11246476 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.48781028 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02211663 = score(doc=54,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper presents the semantic web, web writing content, web technology, goals of semantic and obligation for the expansion of web 3.0. This paper also shows the different components of semantic web and such as HTTP, HTML, XML, XML Schema, URI, RDF, Taxonomy and OWL. To provide valuable information services semantic web execute the benefits of library functions and also to be the best use of library collection are mention here.
- Footnote
- Conference: Relevance of Ranganathan's Philosophy in the 21st CenturyAt: Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University.
-
Kirk, J.: Theorising information use : managers and their work (2002)
0.05
0.04984379 = product of:
0.12460947 = sum of:
0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098406665 = score(doc=560,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.426834 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026202802 = score(doc=560,freq=22.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The focus of this thesis is information use. Although a key concept in information behaviour, information use has received little attention from information science researchers. Studies of other key concepts such as information need and information seeking are dominant in information behaviour research. Information use is an area of interest to information professionals who rely on research outcomes to shape their practice. There are few empirical studies of how people actually use information that might guide and refine the development of information systems, products and services.
- Content
- A thesis submitted to the University of Technology, Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. - Vgl. unter: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2100/309/2/02whole.pdf.
- Imprint
- Sydney : University of Technology / Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
-
Cossham, A.F.: Models of the bibliographic universe (2017)
0.05
0.049356025 = product of:
0.123390056 = sum of:
0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098406665 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.426834 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
0.024983391 = weight(_text_:of in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024983391 = score(doc=3817,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.
- Content
- A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 Faculty of Information Technology. Vgl.: https://figshare.com/articles/Models_of_the_bibliographic_universe/5216347.
- Imprint
- Melbourne : Monash University; Faculty of Information Technology
-
Putkey, T.: Using SKOS to express faceted classification on the Semantic Web (2011)
0.05
0.046018858 = product of:
0.076698095 = sum of:
0.0094074 = product of:
0.047036998 = sum of:
0.047036998 = weight(_text_:problem in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047036998 = score(doc=311,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2652803 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.05623238 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05623238 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.24390514 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
0.011058315 = weight(_text_:of in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011058315 = score(doc=311,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.16928169 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.
Methodology Based on information from research papers, more research was done on SKOS and examples of SKOS and shared faceted classifications in the Semantic Web and about SKOS and how to express SKOS in RDF/XML. Once confident with these ideas, the author used a faceted taxonomy created in a Vocabulary Design class and encoded it using SKOS. Instead of writing RDF in a program such as Notepad, a thesaurus tool was used to create the taxonomy according to SKOS standards and then export the thesaurus in RDF/XML format. These processes and tools are then analyzed. Results The initial statement of the problem was simply an extension of the survey paper done earlier in this class. To continue on with the research, more research was done into SKOS - a standard for expressing thesauri, taxonomies and faceted classifications so they can be shared on the semantic web.
- Source
- Library philosophy and practice, 2011
-
Thornton, K: Powerful structure : inspecting infrastructures of information organization in Wikimedia Foundation projects (2016)
0.04
0.04490778 = product of:
0.112269446 = sum of:
0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084348574 = score(doc=3288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 3288, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3288)
0.027920876 = weight(_text_:of in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027920876 = score(doc=3288,freq=34.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.4274153 = fieldWeight in 3288, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3288)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This dissertation investigates the social and technological factors of collaboratively organizing information in commons-based peer production systems. To do so, it analyzes the diverse strategies that members of Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) project communities use to organize information. Key findings from this dissertation show that conceptual structures of information organization are encoded into the infrastructure of WMF projects. The fact that WMF projects are commons-based peer production systems means that we can inspect the code that enables these systems, but a specific type of technical literacy is required to do so. I use three methods in this dissertation. I conduct a qualitative content analysis of the discussions surrounding the design, implementation and evaluation of the category system; a quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics of patterns of editing among editors who contributed to the code of templates for information boxes; and a close reading of the infrastructure used to create the category system, the infobox templates, and the knowledge base of structured data.
- Footnote
- A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington.
-
Guizzardi, G.; Guarino, N.: Semantics, ontology and explanation (2023)
0.04
0.041400857 = product of:
0.10350214 = sum of:
0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084348574 = score(doc=976,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019153563 = score(doc=976,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The terms 'semantics' and 'ontology' are increasingly appearing together with 'explanation', not only in the scientific literature, but also in organizational communication. However, all of these terms are also being significantly overloaded. In this paper, we discuss their strong relation under particular interpretations. Specifically, we discuss a notion of explanation termed ontological unpacking, which aims at explaining symbolic domain descriptions (conceptual models, knowledge graphs, logical specifications) by revealing their ontological commitment in terms of their assumed truthmakers, i.e., the entities in one's ontology that make the propositions in those descriptions true. To illustrate this idea, we employ an ontological theory of relations to explain (by revealing the hidden semantics of) a very simple symbolic model encoded in the standard modeling language UML. We also discuss the essential role played by ontology-driven conceptual models (resulting from this form of explanation processes) in properly supporting semantic interoperability tasks. Finally, we discuss the relation between ontological unpacking and other forms of explanation in philosophy and science, as well as in the area of Artificial Intelligence.
-
Sales, R. de; Pires, T.B.: ¬The classification of Harris : influences of Bacon and Hegel in the universe of library classification (2017)
0.04
0.040906038 = product of:
0.10226509 = sum of:
0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084348574 = score(doc=3860,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 3860, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3860)
0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 3860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01791652 = score(doc=3860,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3860, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3860)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The studies of library classifications generally interact with a historical approach that contextualizes the research and with the ideas related to classification that are typical of Philosophy. In the 19th century, the North-American philosopher and educator William Torrey Harris developed a book classification at the St. Louis Public School, based on Francis Bacon and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The objective of the present study is to analyze Harris's classification, reflecting upon his theoretical and philosophical backgrounds in order to understand Harris's contribution to Knowledge Organization (KO). To achieve such objective, this study adopts a critical - descriptive approach for the analysis. The results show some influences of Bacon and Hegel in Harris's classification
-
Metzinger, T.: Why Is Virtual Reality interesting for philosophers? (2018)
0.04
0.040906038 = product of:
0.10226509 = sum of:
0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084348574 = score(doc=229,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01791652 = score(doc=229,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article explores promising points of contact between philosophy and the expanding field of virtual reality research. Aiming at an interdisciplinary audience, it proposes a series of new research targets by presenting a range of concrete examples characterized by high theoretical relevance and heuristic fecundity. Among these examples are conscious experience itself, "Bayesian" and social VR, amnestic re-embodiment, merging human-controlled avatars and virtual agents, virtual ego-dissolution, controlling the reality/virtuality continuum, the confluence of VR and artificial intelligence (AI) as well as of VR and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), VR-based social hallucinations and the emergence of a virtual Lebenswelt, religious faith and practical phenomenology. Hopefully, these examples can serve as first proposals for intensified future interaction and mark out some potential new directions for research.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval and knowledge organization : a perspective from the philosophy of science
0.04
0.04037442 = product of:
0.10093605 = sum of:
0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084348574 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
0.016587472 = weight(_text_:of in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016587472 = score(doc=206,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.
-
Müller, H.F.J.: Concept-dynamics and the mind-brain question (2001)
0.04
0.038962554 = product of:
0.09740638 = sum of:
0.019548526 = weight(_text_:of in 6766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019548526 = score(doc=6766,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 6766, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6766)
0.07785785 = product of:
0.1557157 = sum of:
0.1557157 = weight(_text_:mind in 6766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1557157 = score(doc=6766,freq=6.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.597213 = fieldWeight in 6766, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Some difficulties of the relation between thinking and brain function can become more easily comprehensible through an examination of the relevant concept-dynamics. This concerns mainly the transcendence of experience by concepts, and following from here the subject/object split (of ontological or functional type), development and functions of static metaphysics ("realism"), and further the concept- surpassing (encompassing) property of experience. Momentary ongoing experience is the nucleus of thinking ("consciousness") and must not be neglected in the study of this question. It is "given" (ie, not invented by us) but it is structured by us in its entirety. Whatever can be said about the brain and its functions uses concept-structures which are made by us within given experience. But it is not possible inversely to derive ongoing mind-and-nature experience from objective knowledge, nor can experience be reduced to it. Thinking does not come from the brain, the brain comes from thinking. Experience is neither identical with objective brain functions, nor with a publicly accessible "self"; both suppositions imply an erroneous assumption of a primary (ontological) subject/ object split. The correlation of public subjective and public objective data can be examined (eg, in time), but ongoing experience encompasses all data. A belief in mind-independently structured reality blocks the access to the question about this process. On the other hand, metaphysics can become functional in the form of working metaphysics, and in this way the encompassing aspect of experience remains evident.
-
Spink, A.; Wilson, T.; Ellis, D.; Ford, N.: Modeling users' successive searches in digital environments : a National Science Foundation/British Library funded study (1998)
0.04
0.036295157 = product of:
0.060491923 = sum of:
0.010081458 = product of:
0.050407287 = sum of:
0.050407287 = weight(_text_:problem in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050407287 = score(doc=1255,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.28428814 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.018944593 = weight(_text_:of in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018944593 = score(doc=1255,freq=46.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.29000556 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
46.0 = termFreq=46.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
0.031465873 = product of:
0.062931746 = sum of:
0.062931746 = weight(_text_:mind in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062931746 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.24136074 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- As digital libraries become a major source of information for many people, we need to know more about how people seek and retrieve information in digital environments. Quite commonly, users with a problem-at-hand and associated question-in-mind repeatedly search a literature for answers, and seek information in stages over extended periods from a variety of digital information resources. The process of repeatedly searching over time in relation to a specific, but possibly an evolving information problem (including changes or shifts in a variety of variables), is called the successive search phenomenon. The study outlined in this paper is currently investigating this new and little explored line of inquiry for information retrieval, Web searching, and digital libraries. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the nature, manifestations, and behavior of successive searching by users in digital environments, and to derive criteria for use in the design of information retrieval interfaces and systems supporting successive searching behavior. This study includes two related projects. The first project is based in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of North Texas and is funded by a National Science Foundation POWRE Grant <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/show?award=9753277>. The second project is based at the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield (UK) and is funded by a grant from the British Library <http://www.shef. ac.uk/~is/research/imrg/uncerty.html> Research and Innovation Center. The broad objectives of each project are to examine the nature and extent of successive search episodes in digital environments by real users over time. The specific aim of the current project is twofold: * To characterize progressive changes and shifts that occur in: user situational context; user information problem; uncertainty reduction; user cognitive styles; cognitive and affective states of the user, and consequently in their queries; and * To characterize related changes over time in the type and use of information resources and search strategies particularly related to given capabilities of IR systems, and IR search engines, and examine changes in users' relevance judgments and criteria, and characterize their differences. The study is an observational, longitudinal data collection in the U.S. and U.K. Three questionnaires are used to collect data: reference, client post search and searcher post search questionnaires. Each successive search episode with a search intermediary for textual materials on the DIALOG Information Service is audiotaped and search transaction logs are recorded. Quantitative analysis includes statistical analysis using Likert scale data from the questionnaires and log-linear analysis of sequential data. Qualitative methods include: content analysis, structuring taxonomies; and diagrams to describe shifts and transitions within and between each search episode. Outcomes of the study are the development of appropriate model(s) for IR interactions in successive search episodes and the derivation of a set of design criteria for interfaces and systems supporting successive searching.
-
Baines, D.; Elliott, R.J.: Defining misinformation, disinformation and malinformation : an urgent need for clarity during the COVID-19 infodemic (2020)
0.04
0.035254303 = product of:
0.08813576 = sum of:
0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070290476 = score(doc=5853,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 5853, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5853)
0.017845279 = weight(_text_:of in 5853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017845279 = score(doc=5853,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5853, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5853)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- COVID-19 is an unprecedented global health crisis that will have immeasurable consequences for our economic and social well-being. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general of the World Health Organization, stated "We're not just fighting an epidemic; we're fighting an infodemic". Currently, there is no robust scientific basis to the existing definitions of false information used in the fight against the COVID-19infodemic. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the use of a novel taxonomy and related model (based upon a conceptual framework that synthesizes insights from information science, philosophy, media studies and politics) can produce new scientific definitions of mis-, dis- and malinformation. We undertake our analysis from the viewpoint of information systems research. The conceptual approach to defining mis-,dis- and malinformation can be applied to a wide range of empirical examples and, if applied properly, may prove useful in fighting the COVID-19 infodemic. In sum, our research suggests that: (i) analyzing all types of information is important in the battle against the COVID-19 infodemic; (ii) a scientific approach is required so that different methods are not used by different studies; (iii) "misinformation", as an umbrella term, can be confusing and should be dropped from use; (iv) clear, scientific definitions of information types will be needed going forward; (v) malinformation is an overlooked phenomenon involving reconfigurations of the truth.
