Search (80 results, page 1 of 4)

0.28262377 = product of:
  0.4945916 = sum of:
    0.04945916 = product of:
      0.14837748 = sum of:
        0.14837748 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14837748 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31681007 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
    0.14837748 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14837748 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31681007 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = 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)
    0.14837748 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14837748 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31681007 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = 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)
    0.14837748 = weight(_text_:2f in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14837748 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31681007 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = 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)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)

Source

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

0.0328429 = product of:
  0.22990029 = sum of:
    0.22990029 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22990029 = score(doc=2730,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        1.0740336 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Knowledge structure and use: implications for synthesis and interpretation. Ed.: S.A. Ward u. L.J. Reed

0.027094012 = product of:
  0.18965808 = sum of:
    0.18965808 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 7748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18965808 = score(doc=7748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.8860326 = fieldWeight in 7748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7748)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Knowledge structure and use: implications for synthesis and interpretation. Ed.: S.A. Ward and L.J. Reed

0.025964592 = product of:
  0.18175213 = sum of:
    0.18175213 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18175213 = score(doc=3318,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.84909815 = fieldWeight in 3318, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3318)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Many tasks in library and information science (e.g., indexing, abstracting, classification, and text analysis techniques such as discourse and content analysis) require text meaning interpretation, and, therefore, any individual differences in interpretation are relevant and should be considered, especially for applications in which these tasks are done automatically. This article investigates individual differences in the interpretation of one aspect of text meaning that is commonly used in such automatic applications: lexical cohesion and lexical semantic relations. Experiments with 26 participants indicate an approximately 40% difference in interpretation. In total, 79, 83, and 89 lexical chains (groups of semantically related words) were analyzed in 3 texts, respectively. A major implication of this result is the possibility of modeling individual differences for individual users. Further research is suggested for different types of texts and readers than those used here, as well as similar research for different aspects of text meaning.

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=3978,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 3978, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3978)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Information is displacing knowledge as the principle theoretical focus of library and information science. A growing concensus regarding the disciplinary meaning of information, however is sustained at a more fundamental level by a specific conception of knowledge. Analyses a variety of conceptions of knowledge and its relations to information in anattempt to contextualizes the conception underlying the widely held interpretation of information. Recommends the restoration of knowledge as a fundamental study for information professionals

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=4712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 4712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4712)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Colours, icons, graphics, hypertext links and other multimedia elements are variables that affect information search strategies and information seeking behaviour. These variables are culturally constructed and represented and are subject to individual and community interpretation. Hypothesizes that users in different communities (in intercultural or multicultural context) will interpret differently the meanings of the multimedia objects on the Internet. Users' interpretations of multimedia objects may differ from the intentions of the designers. A study in this area is being undertaken

0.014221393 = product of:
  0.09954974 = sum of:
    0.09954974 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09954974 = score(doc=5079,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4650702 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.013684542 = product of:
  0.09579179 = sum of:
    0.09579179 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09579179 = score(doc=1211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.44751403 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The study of interhuman communication requires a more complex framework than Claude E. Shannon's (1948) mathematical theory of communication because "information" is defined in the latter case as meaningless uncertainty. Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon's theory by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchanges in reflexive communications. The information is redundant because it is based on "pure sets" (i.e., without subtraction of mutual information in the overlaps). We show that in the three-dimensional case (e.g., of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information (Rxyz = Txyz); but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions and proceed to the interpretation. Using Niklas Luhmann's (1984-1995) social systems theory and/or Anthony Giddens's (1979, 1984) structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: Different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of ("absent") options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann's "functional (sub)systems" of expectations or Giddens's "rule-resource sets" are positioned mutually, but coupled operationally in events or "instantiated" in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation, but the "structures" are (re-)positioned toward one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. The structural differences among the coding and decoding algorithms provide a source of additional options in reflexive and anticipatory communications.

0.013684542 = product of:
  0.09579179 = sum of:
    0.09579179 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09579179 = score(doc=2317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.44751403 = fieldWeight in 2317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2317)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose an appropriate symbolic representation, as well as its metaphorical interpretation, to illustrate the special role of information in the knowledge acquisition process. Design/methodology/approach Besides the literature review, this is a speculative study based on a symbolic and metaphorical point of view. Findings The proposed symbolic representation was derived from the conceptual designation of information "as a flow" and, accordingly, by the corresponding redrawing of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) pyramid. The knowledge acquisition process is symbolically represented by the growth of a "tree of knowledge" which is planted on a "data earth," filled with "information sap" and lit by the rays of the "sun of the mind," a new symbol of the concept of wisdom in the DIKW model. As indicated, a key concept of this metaphorical interpretation is the role of "information sap" which rises from the roots of the "tree of knowledge" to the top of the tree and it is recognized as an invisible link between "world of data" and "world of knowledge." This concept is also proposed as a new symbolic representation of the DIKW model. Originality/value On the basis of specific symbolic-metaphorical representation, this paper provides a relatively new concept of information which may help bridge observed gaps in the understanding of information in various scientific fields, as well as in its understanding as an objective or subjective phenomenon.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=1987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 1987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1987)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Historicial studies using computers and social science research methodologies share many interests, techniques, methods and approaches with modern information science. The major difference is a focus on retrospective rather than contemporary research topics and attendant differences in methods resulting from the nature of historical sources and the impact of time on interpretation. Whereas historical informatics evolved as a focus on computer science and history from quantification research, this field is still growing and absorbing in an interdisciplinary manner material, methods and approaches from other fields in accord with the syncretic nature of history. This enlarged arena may be called Historical Information Science, which is exemplified by the recent conferences and activities of the International Association of History and Computing

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=3322,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A defintion of the meaning of a text should not be based on the concept of truth, but on the concepts of intention and action. Uses the cybernetic paradigm of communication in which the purpose of communication is taken to be the control of a system's behaviour with the intention of regulating action in the system. The meaning of the action is thus that interpretation most consistent with the receiving system's model of the sending system. Discusses the applicability of the model to a man-machine system, and examines implications of the analysis

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 7645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=7645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 7645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7645)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The escalating economic importance of information and the increasing integration of cultural spheres into the economic system are identified as key factors in the conception of information as a commodity, rather than a public good. This is now having a significant impact on government policy and on libraries, with prominent professional representatives advocating an entrepreneurial model of librarianship which contradicts traditional ideas of free and equal access to information. Such a model threatens the future of the library as a vital sphere of democratic culture. Discusses the broader trends exemplifying the current trajectory of advanced capitalism so as to proved a context for the critical interpretation of issues within librarianship

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article addresses the question "what is information?" by comparing the meaning of the term "information" and epistemological assumptions of three theories in library and information science: the "Shannon-Weaver model," Brookes' interpretation of Popper's World 3, and the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom model. It shows that the term "information" in these theories refers to empirical entities or events and is conceptualized as having causal powers upon human minds. It is argued that the epistemological assumptions have led to the negligence of the cultural and social aspects of the constitution of information (i.e., how something is considered to be and not to be information) and the unquestioned nature of science in research methodologies.

0.013408058 = product of:
  0.0938564 = sum of:
    0.0938564 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0938564 = score(doc=838,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.43847242 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Research in vision and language has traditionally remained separate, in part because the classic task of generating a representation of a given image or sentence has resulted in an emphasis on low lewel structural aspects of these media. Image and language understanding should be approaches with the intent of facilitating the performance of a task. Under this view research in image and language understanding must confront common issues that arise as a task is pursued. Languages and images are both input that can be used to maintain a model of a task. A model may by maintained by incorporating changes in the scene that can be characterizes at a high level of analysis. Existing task rlevant models and the associated domain knowledge are used to expect specific changes and disambiguate the interpretation of these changes, thereby allowing them to modify the existing model. From this perspective, understanding input is largely independent of the modality of the input

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 98) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=98,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 98, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=98)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article develops a non-reductionistic and interdisciplinary view of information and human knowing in the light of second-order cybernetics, where information is seen as 'a difference which makes a difference' for a living autopoietic (self-organizing, self-creating) system. Another key idea comes from the semiotics of Peirce: the understanding of signs as a triatic relation between an object, a representation, and an interpretant. Information is the interpretation of signs by living, feeling, aelf-organizing, biological and social systems. As a concrete example we attempt to describe Library and Information Science (LIS) - especially Information Retrieval (IR) - in a way that goes beyond the cognitivist 'information processing paradigm'. The mn problem of this paradigm is that its concept of information and language 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 LIS to organize and retrieve documents. The paradigm does not distinguish clearly enough between how the computer manipulate signs and how meaning is generated in autopoietic systems, and thereby the difference between physical and intellectual access

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=5253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 5253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5253)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint in library and information science identifies seven discourse strategies which constitute information as a commodity, and persons as surveyable information consumers, within market economy conditions. These strategies are: (a) universality of theory, (b) referentiality and reification of 'images', (c) internalisation of representations (d) radical individualism and erasure of the social dimension of theory, (e) insistence upon knowledge, (f) constitution of the information scientist as an expert in image negotiation, and (g) instrumental reason, ruled by efficiency, standardisation, predictibility, and determination of effects. The discourse is guided throughout by a yearning for natural-scientific theory. The effect of the cognitive viewpoint's discursive strategy is to enable knowledge acquisition of information processes only when users' and generators 'images' are constituted as objectively given natural-scientific entities, and ti disable knowledge of the same processes when considered as products of social practices. By its constitution of users as free creators of images, of the information scientist as an expert in image interpretation and delivery, and of databases as repositories of unmediated models of the world, the cognitive viewpoint performs ideological labour for modern capitalist image markets

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=1774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 1774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1774)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the flood of information that is inundating us. This flood makes it increasingly difficult to make sense of the world and arrive at the correct interpretation of events. Design/methodology/approach - Classic narrative literature review applying the dosage metaphor to the growing problem of information overload. Findings - The seven elements of dosage - amount, frequency, sequencing, delivery systems, contraindications, interactions, and dysfunctions - are used to discuss four major coping mechanisms - escape, attention, delegation, and creative destruction - for dealing with the flood. Each of the coping mechanisms has different entailments for the dosage elements. Originality/value - This essay develops a guiding principle for thinking about how we should cope with this central problem of the information age: suggesting a minimalist approach that offers the hope of clarity in acting in an age that increasingly overwhelms us.

0.010947634 = product of:
  0.07663343 = sum of:
    0.07663343 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07663343 = score(doc=5379,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.35801122 = fieldWeight in 5379, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5379)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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