Search (231 results, page 1 of 12)

0.09973129 = product of:
  0.24932823 = sum of:
    0.062332056 = product of:
      0.18699616 = sum of:
        0.18699616 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18699616 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18699616 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18699616 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.09184346 = product of:
  0.22960865 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
    0.15838408 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15838408 = score(doc=417,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25749236 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.61510205 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Libraries, archives and museums have traditionally been a part of the public sphere's infrastructure. They have been so by providing public access to culture and knowledge, by being agents for enlightenment and by being public meeting places in their communities. Digitization and globalization poses new challenges in relation to upholding a sustainable public sphere. Can libraries, archives and museums contribute in meeting these challenges?

RSWK

Bibliothek / Archiv / Museum / Digitalisierung / Demokratie / Öffentlichkeit / Aufsatzsammlung (GBV)

Subject

Bibliothek / Archiv / Museum / Digitalisierung / Demokratie / Öffentlichkeit / Aufsatzsammlung (GBV)

0.0831094 = product of:
  0.2077735 = sum of:
    0.051943377 = product of:
      0.15583013 = sum of:
        0.15583013 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15583013 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.15583013 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15583013 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.05106003 = product of:
  0.12765007 = sum of:
    0.11870761 = weight(_text_:relation in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11870761 = score(doc=103,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.5780928 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
    0.008942453 = product of:
      0.02682736 = sum of:
        0.02682736 = weight(_text_:29 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682736 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

There have been many attempts at classifying the semantic modification relations (R) of N + N compounds but this work has not led to the acceptance of a definitive scheme, so that devising a reusable classification is a worthwhile aim. The scope of this undertaking is extended to other binominal lexemes, i.e. units that contain two thing-morphemes without explicitly stating R, like prepositional units, N + relational adjective units, etc. The 25-relation taxonomy of Bourque (2014) was tested against over 15,000 binominal lexemes from 106 languages and extended to a 29-relation scheme ("Bourque2") through the introduction of two new reversible relations. Bourque2 is then mapped onto Hatcher's (1960) four-relation scheme (extended by the addition of a fifth relation, similarity , as "Hatcher2"). This results in a two-tier system usable at different degrees of granularities. On account of its semantic proximity to compounding, metonymy is then taken into account, following Janda's (2011) suggestion that it plays a role in word formation; Peirsman and Geeraerts' (2006) inventory of 23 metonymic patterns is mapped onto Bourque2, confirming the identity of metonymic and binominal modification relations. Finally, Blank's (2003) and Koch's (2001) work on lexical semantics justifies the addition to the scheme of a third, superordinate level which comprises the three Aristotelean principles of similarity, contiguity and contrast.

0.03278221 = product of:
  0.081955515 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
    0.010730944 = product of:
      0.03219283 = sum of:
        0.03219283 = weight(_text_:29 in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03219283 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre-trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text-based user requests (i.e., a "chatbot"). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT-3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing.

Date

19. 4.2023 19:29:44

0.027286327 = product of:
  0.06821582 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.008862011 = product of:
      0.026586032 = sum of:
        0.026586032 = weight(_text_:22 in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026586032 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5973, 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=5973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore effects of individuals' social context on their perception of a task, for better understanding of social aspects of task-based information seeking behavior. Design/methodology/approach This study took a qualitative case approach and conducted semi-structured one-on-one interviews with 12 participants. A cross-context comparative approach was chosen to identify effects of the social contexts on individuals. For comparative analysis, the research population was tenured faculty members in two different disciplines, natural sciences and humanities. The interview data were analyzed and coded using NVivo12 through an open coding process. Findings The results demonstrate that the same task type is differently perceived by individuals in different social contexts. Reasons for the different perceptions in the different contexts are associated with social factors of the disciplines, specifically social norms and practices. Originality/value This study uses a novel theoretical framework, cognitive sociology, to examine social aspects of human perception in relation to task-based information seeking behavior, which has been little understood theoretically and empirically in the field of information science.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.027286327 = product of:
  0.06821582 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
    0.008862011 = product of:
      0.026586032 = sum of:
        0.026586032 = weight(_text_:22 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026586032 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 678, 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=678)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose This article examines the relation between place, space and information behaviour. Design/methodology/approach Concepts of place and space are explored through a comparison of three leisure pursuits: running, urban exploration and genealogy, based on the authors' research and the published literature. Findings A socially constructed meaning of place is central to each leisure activity but how it is experienced physically, emotionally and imaginatively are different. Places have very different meanings within each practice. Mirroring this, information behaviours are also very different: such as the sources used, the type of information created and how it is shared or not shared. Information behaviour contributes to the meanings associated with place in particular social practices. Research limitations/implications Meaning attached to place can be understood as actively constructed within social practices. Rather than context for information behaviours in the sense of an outside, containing, even constraining, environment, the meaning of place can be seen as actively constructed within social practices and by the information behaviours that are part of them. Originality/value The paper adds a new perspective to the understanding of place and space in the study of information behaviour.

Date

5. 6.2022 17:20:22

0.027286327 = product of:
  0.06821582 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.008862011 = product of:
      0.026586032 = sum of:
        0.026586032 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026586032 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.026397347 = product of:
  0.13198674 = sum of:
    0.13198674 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13198674 = score(doc=622,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25749236 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.51258504 = fieldWeight in 622, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=622)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

RSWK

Information / Philosophie / Soziologie / Aufsatzsammlung

Subject

Information / Philosophie / Soziologie / Aufsatzsammlung

0.024672914 = product of:
  0.12336457 = sum of:
    0.12336457 = weight(_text_:relation in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12336457 = score(doc=348,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.60077167 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

"Der Begriff der Gleichheit ist uns Mathematikern vielleicht der geläufigste; dennoch läßt sich schwer sagen, was wir unter ihm verstehen." - Mit diesem Satz beginnt GERHARD HESSENBERG sein Buch über die .Grundlagen der Geometrie' ([24], Berlin, 1930, §1). Er kommt nach einer ausführlichen Diskussion zum Schluß, daß die Relation der Gleichheit nichts anderes als eine Äquivalenzrelation sei, also eine symmetrische, transitive und reflexive Relation, und daß auch umgekehrt jede symmetrische, transitive und reflexive Relation eine Gleichheitsbeziehung sei. Die Begriffe Gleichheit und Äquivalenz wären demnach synonym. Schaut man im .Mathematischen Wörterbuch' von J. NAAS & H.L. SCHMID (Berlin, 1967) nach, so findet man unter dem Stichwort Gleichheit (p. 639) genau dieselbe Definition: "Die Gleichheit ist eine Äquivalenzrelation und umgekehrt kann jede Äquivalenzrelation als eine besondere Art von Gleichheit aufgefaßt werden."

0.024354333 = product of:
  0.06088583 = sum of:
    0.051943377 = product of:
      0.15583013 = sum of:
        0.15583013 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15583013 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008942453 = product of:
      0.02682736 = sum of:
        0.02682736 = weight(_text_:29 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682736 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.021829061 = product of:
  0.054572653 = sum of:
    0.047483046 = weight(_text_:relation in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047483046 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.23123713 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
    0.0070896083 = product of:
      0.021268824 = sum of:
        0.021268824 = weight(_text_:22 in 183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021268824 = score(doc=183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=183)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge and attitude about research data management, the use of data management methods and the perceived need for support, in relation to participants' field of research. Design/methodology/approach This is a quantitative study. Data were collected by an email survey and sent to 792 academic researchers and doctoral students. Total response rate was 18% (N = 139). The measurement instrument consisted of six sets of questions: about data management plans, the assignment of additional information to research data, about metadata, standard file naming systems, training at data management methods and the storing of research data. Findings The main finding is that knowledge about the procedures of data management is limited, and data management is not a normal practice in the researcher's work. They were, however, in general, of the opinion that the university should take the lead by recommending and offering access to the necessary tools of data management. Taken together, the results indicate that there is an urgent need to increase the researcher's understanding of the importance of data management that is based on professional knowledge and to provide them with resources and training that enables them to make effective and productive use of data management methods. Research limitations/implications The survey was sent to all members of the population but not a sample of it. Because of the response rate, the results cannot be generalized to all researchers at the university. Nevertheless, the findings may provide an important understanding about their research data procedures, in particular what characterizes their knowledge about data management and attitude towards it. Practical implications Awareness of these issues is essential for information specialists at academic libraries, together with other units within the universities, to be able to design infrastructures and develop services that suit the needs of the research community. The findings can be used, to develop data policies and services, based on professional knowledge of best practices and recognized standards that assist the research community at data management. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing literature about research data management by examining the results by participants' field of research. Recognition of the issues is critical in order for information specialists in collaboration with universities to design relevant infrastructures and services for academics and doctoral students that can promote their research data management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.02014535 = product of:
  0.100726746 = sum of:
    0.100726746 = weight(_text_:relation in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100726746 = score(doc=976,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.49052802 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.016787792 = product of:
  0.083938956 = sum of:
    0.083938956 = weight(_text_:relation in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083938956 = score(doc=24,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40877336 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).

0.016787792 = product of:
  0.083938956 = sum of:
    0.083938956 = weight(_text_:relation in 387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083938956 = score(doc=387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40877336 = fieldWeight in 387, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=387)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause-effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause-effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified-showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause-effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing.

0.016619066 = product of:
  0.08309533 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=5929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A systematic literature review is carried out, detailing the research topics and the methods and techniques used in information science in studies published between 2000 and 2019. The results obtained allow us to affirm that there is no consensus on the core topics of information science, as these evolve and change dynamically in relation to other disciplines, and with the dominant social and cultural contexts. With regard to the research methods and techniques, it can be stated that they have mostly been adopted from social sciences, with the addition of numerical methods, especially in the fields of bibliometric and scientometric research.

0.016619066 = product of:
  0.08309533 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the face of the ever-increasing document volume, libraries around the globe are more and more exploring (semi-) automated approaches to subject indexing. This helps sustain bibliographic objectives, enrich metadata, and establish more connections across documents from various collections, effectively leading to improved information retrieval and access. However, generally accepted automated approaches that are functional in operative systems are lacking. This article aims to provide an overview of basic principles used for automated subject indexing, major approaches in relation to their possible application in actual library systems, existing working examples, as well as related challenges calling for further research.

0.016619066 = product of:
  0.08309533 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=1118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents a brief history of the term "information" and its different meanings, which are both important and difficult because the different meanings of the term imply whole theories of knowledge. The article further considers the relation between "information" and the concepts "matter and energy", "data", "sign and meaning", "knowledge" and "communication". It presents and analyses the influence of information in information studies and knowledge organization and contains a presentation and critical analysis of some compound terms such as "information need", "information overload" and "information retrieval", which illuminate the use of the term information in information studies. An appendix provides a chronological list of definitions of information.

0.016391104 = product of:
  0.040977757 = sum of:
    0.035612285 = weight(_text_:relation in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035612285 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.17342785 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
    0.005365472 = product of:
      0.016096415 = sum of:
        0.016096415 = weight(_text_:29 in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016096415 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Metadata in the Digital Library is a complete guide to building a digital library metadata strategy from scratch, using established metadata standards bound together by the markup language XML. The book introduces the reader to the theory of metadata and shows how it can be applied in practice. It lays out the basic principles that should underlie any metadata strategy, including its relation to such fundamentals as the digital curation lifecycle, and demonstrates how they should be put into effect. It introduces the XML language and the key standards for each type of metadata, including Dublin Core and MODS for descriptive metadata and PREMIS for its administrative and preservation counterpart. Finally, the book shows how these can all be integrated using the packaging standard METS. Two case studies from the Warburg Institute in London show how the strategy can be implemented in a working environment. The strategy laid out in this book will ensure that a digital library's metadata will support all of its operations, be fully interoperable with others and enable its long-term preservation. It assumes no prior knowledge of metadata, XML or any of the standards that it covers. It provides both an introduction to best practices in digital library metadata and a manual for their practical implementation.

Date

29. 9.2022 17:57:57

0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 5880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=5880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 5880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5880)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

"Discipline" is commonly used to denote particular areas of knowledge, research and education. Yet, the concept is often not very well defined or even explicitly discussed when used in knowledge organisation and related fields. The aim of this article is to encourage and facilitate further reflections on academic disciplines, while at the same time offering insights on how this elusive concept might be understood. An overarching argument is that "discipline" should foremost be understood in relation to institutional and organisational features, and this is what distinguishes it from related terms such as, field, domain or topic. The etymology and history of the concept are reviewed along with a discussion of attempts to define and conceptualise disciplines. Insights are offered on how disciplines might be studied. Regardless of our views of disciplines, either as inherently out-dated constructs or as important features of a well-functioning academia, it is concluded that further precision or care in explicating the concept is needed.