Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 1468, 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=1468)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A study of the 144 publications on the Colon Classification published in the last 15 years was made with the purpose to understand its present situation. The article gives the reason for the selection of the period, describes methodology and scope of the investigation, shows previous attempts of collecting this literature and attempts at an interpretation of results (displayed in 8 tables) according to (1) chronological output, (2) kinds of media, (3) origin of contributions, (4) authors, (5) subjects written about, and (6) neglected areas of study. The 144 publications are listed is a separate bibliography in chronological and alphabetical order

0.014740471 = product of:
  0.10318329 = sum of:
    0.10318329 = sum of:
      0.06774294 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06774294 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037368443 = queryNorm
          0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
      0.035440356 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035440356 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037368443 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

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).

0.011060072 = product of:
  0.0774205 = sum of:
    0.0774205 = product of:
      0.154841 = sum of:
        0.154841 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 5139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.154841 = score(doc=5139,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.85586053 = fieldWeight in 5139, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.009677563 = product of:
  0.06774294 = sum of:
    0.06774294 = product of:
      0.13548587 = sum of:
        0.13548587 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 3192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13548587 = score(doc=3192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.74887794 = fieldWeight in 3192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.009676432 = product of:
  0.067735024 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.0077411463 = product of:
  0.05418802 = sum of:
    0.05418802 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05418802 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.25315216 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Relevance is a, if not even the, key notion in information science in general and information retrieval in particular. This two-part critical review traces and synthesizes the scholarship on relevance over the past 30 years and provides an updated framework within which the still widely dissonant ideas and works about relevance might be interpreted and related. It is a continuation and update of a similar review that appeared in 1975 under the same title, considered here as being Part I. The present review is organized into two parts: Part II addresses the questions related to nature and manifestations of relevance, and Part III addresses questions related to relevance behavior and effects. In Part II, the nature of relevance is discussed in terms of meaning ascribed to relevance, theories used or proposed, and models that have been developed. The manifestations of relevance are classified as to several kinds of relevance that form an interdependent system of relevances. In Part III, relevance behavior and effects are synthesized using experimental and observational works that incorporate data. In both parts, each section concludes with a summary that in effect provides an interpretation and synthesis of contemporary thinking on the topic treated or suggests hypotheses for future research. Analyses of some of the major trends that shape relevance work are offered in conclusions.

0.006773503 = product of:
  0.04741452 = sum of:
    0.04741452 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 4276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04741452 = score(doc=4276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.22150815 = fieldWeight in 4276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4276)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Advanced technology has resulted in the generation of about one million terabytes of information every year. Ninety-reine percent of this is available in digital format (Keim, 2001). More information will be generated in the next three years than was created during all of previous human history (Keim, 2001). Collecting information is no longer a problem, but extracting value from information collections has become progressively more difficult. Various search engines have been developed to make it easier to locate information of interest, but these work well only for a person who has a specific goal and who understands what and how information is stored. This usually is not the Gase. Visualization was commonly thought of in terms of representing human mental processes (MacEachren, 1991; Miller, 1984). The concept is now associated with the amplification of these mental processes (Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman, 1999). Human eyes can process visual cues rapidly, whereas advanced information analysis techniques transform the computer into a powerful means of managing digitized information. Visualization offers a link between these two potent systems, the human eye and the computer (Gershon, Eick, & Card, 1998), helping to identify patterns and to extract insights from large amounts of information. The identification of patterns is important because it may lead to a scientific discovery, an interpretation of clues to solve a crime, the prediction of catastrophic weather, a successful financial investment, or a better understanding of human behavior in a computermediated environment. Visualization technology shows considerable promise for increasing the value of large-scale collections of information, as evidenced by several commercial applications of TreeMap (e.g., http://www.smartmoney.com) and Hyperbolic tree (e.g., http://www.inxight.com) to visualize large-scale hierarchical structures. Although the proliferation of visualization technologies dates from the 1990s where sophisticated hardware and software made increasingly faster generation of graphical objects possible, the role of visual aids in facilitating the construction of mental images has a long history. Visualization has been used to communicate ideas, to monitor trends implicit in data, and to explore large volumes of data for hypothesis generation. Imagine traveling to a strange place without a map, having to memorize physical and chemical properties of an element without Mendeleyev's periodic table, trying to understand the stock market without statistical diagrams, or browsing a collection of documents without interactive visual aids. A collection of information can lose its value simply because of the effort required for exhaustive exploration. Such frustrations can be overcome by visualization.

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.109-145

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.41-77

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.79-108

0.005062908 = product of:
  0.035440356 = sum of:
    0.035440356 = product of:
      0.07088071 = sum of:
        0.07088071 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088071 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

0.003616363 = product of:
  0.02531454 = sum of:
    0.02531454 = product of:
      0.05062908 = sum of:
        0.05062908 = weight(_text_:22 in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05062908 = score(doc=209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 209, 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=209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.4, S.81-

0.0028930905 = product of:
  0.020251632 = sum of:
    0.020251632 = product of:
      0.040503263 = sum of:
        0.040503263 = weight(_text_:22 in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040503263 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2193, 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=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 14(1992) nos.3/4, S.5-22

0.0028930905 = product of:
  0.020251632 = sum of:
    0.020251632 = product of:
      0.040503263 = sum of:
        0.040503263 = weight(_text_:22 in 8460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040503263 = score(doc=8460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 8460, 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=8460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Reference services review. 22(1994) no.2, S.31-40