Search (115 results, page 6 of 6)

3.1282406E-4 = product of:
  0.0075077773 = sum of:
    0.0075077773 = product of:
      0.015015555 = sum of:
        0.015015555 = weight(_text_:29 in 4274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015015555 = score(doc=4274,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4274, 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=4274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

23.10.2005 18:29:40

3.1282406E-4 = product of:
  0.0075077773 = sum of:
    0.0075077773 = product of:
      0.015015555 = sum of:
        0.015015555 = weight(_text_:29 in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015015555 = score(doc=5738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5738, 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=5738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

29. 9.2008 19:07:48

3.1001001E-4 = product of:
  0.00744024 = sum of:
    0.00744024 = product of:
      0.01488048 = sum of:
        0.01488048 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01488048 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 7364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=7364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 7364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7364)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 4243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=4243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4243)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

Inequities in information creation, production, distribution, and use are nothing new. Throughout human history some people have been more educated, better connected, more widely traveled, or more wellinformed than others. Until recently, relatively few have enjoyed the benefits of literacy, and even fewer could afford to own books. In the age of mass media, societies and social groups have varied dramatically in terms of their access to and uses of print, radio, television, film, telephone, and telegraph. What is new, however, is the growing attention being given to informational inequities in an increasingly information-driven global economy. Across disciplinary, national, and cultural boundaries, the widespread agreement is that the use of newer information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly the Internet, has accelerated the production, circulation, and consumption of information in every form. But also a growing sense has arisen that ICTs have helped to exacerbate existing differences in information access and use, and may even have fostered new types of barriers. As Hess and Ostrom (2001, p. 45) point out, "Distributed digital technologies have the dual capacity to increase as well as restrict access to information."

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=4288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 2156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=2156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2156)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.1787935E-4 = product of:
  0.0052291043 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Source

Informação & Informação. 26(2021) no.1, p.550-573

2.1568956E-4 = product of:
  0.0051765493 = sum of:
    0.0051765493 = product of:
      0.0155296475 = sum of:
        0.0155296475 = weight(_text_:p in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0155296475 = score(doc=4285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.1966296 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

The introduction and growth of the World Wide Web (WWW, or Web) have resulted in a profound change in the way individuals and organizations access information. In terms of volume, nature, and accessibility, the characteristics of electronic information are significantly different from those of even five or six years ago. Control of, and access to, this flood of information rely heavily an automated techniques for indexing and retrieval. According to Gudivada, Raghavan, Grosky, and Kasanagottu (1997, p. 58), "The ability to search and retrieve information from the Web efficiently and effectively is an enabling technology for realizing its full potential." Almost 93 percent of those surveyed consider the Web an "indispensable" Internet technology, second only to e-mail (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). Although there are other ways of locating information an the Web (browsing or following directory structures), 85 percent of users identify Web pages by means of a search engine (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). A more recent study conducted by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society confirms the finding that searching for information is second only to e-mail as an Internet activity (Nie & Ebring, 2000, online). In fact, Nie and Ebring conclude, "... the Internet today is a giant public library with a decidedly commercial tilt. The most widespread use of the Internet today is as an information search utility for products, travel, hobbies, and general information. Virtually all users interviewed responded that they engaged in one or more of these information gathering activities."
Techniques for automated indexing and information retrieval (IR) have been developed, tested, and refined over the past 40 years, and are well documented (see, for example, Agosti & Smeaton, 1996; BaezaYates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999a; Frakes & Baeza-Yates, 1992; Korfhage, 1997; Salton, 1989; Witten, Moffat, & Bell, 1999). With the introduction of the Web, and the capability to index and retrieve via search engines, these techniques have been extended to a new environment. They have been adopted, altered, and in some Gases extended to include new methods. "In short, search engines are indispensable for searching the Web, they employ a variety of relatively advanced IR techniques, and there are some peculiar aspects of search engines that make searching the Web different than more conventional information retrieval" (Gordon & Pathak, 1999, p. 145). The environment for information retrieval an the World Wide Web differs from that of "conventional" information retrieval in a number of fundamental ways. The collection is very large and changes continuously, with pages being added, deleted, and altered. Wide variability between the size, structure, focus, quality, and usefulness of documents makes Web documents much more heterogeneous than a typical electronic document collection. The wide variety of document types includes images, video, audio, and scripts, as well as many different document languages. Duplication of documents and sites is common. Documents are interconnected through networks of hyperlinks. Because of the size and dynamic nature of the Web, preprocessing all documents requires considerable resources and is often not feasible, certainly not an the frequent basis required to ensure currency. Query length is usually much shorter than in other environments-only a few words-and user behavior differs from that in other environments. These differences make the Web a novel environment for information retrieval (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999b; Bharat & Henzinger, 1998; Huang, 2000).

1.8487677E-4 = product of:
  0.0044370424 = sum of:
    0.0044370424 = product of:
      0.013311126 = sum of:
        0.013311126 = weight(_text_:p in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013311126 = score(doc=1978,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.16853966 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.
Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.

1.8487677E-4 = product of:
  0.0044370424 = sum of:
    0.0044370424 = product of:
      0.013311126 = sum of:
        0.013311126 = weight(_text_:p in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013311126 = score(doc=1270,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.16853966 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

1.7430348E-4 = product of:
  0.0041832835 = sum of:
    0.0041832835 = product of:
      0.01254985 = sum of:
        0.01254985 = weight(_text_:p in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01254985 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

1.5251554E-4 = product of:
  0.003660373 = sum of:
    0.003660373 = product of:
      0.010981118 = sum of:
        0.010981118 = weight(_text_:p in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010981118 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.13903812 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

Shannon provides a model whereby an information source selects a desired message, out of a set of possible messages, that is then formed into a signal. The signal is sent over the communication channel to a receiver, which then transforms the signal back to a message that is relayed to its destination (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963, p. 7). Problems connected with this model have remained with us. Some of the concepts are ambiguous; the identification of information with a process has spancelled the debate; the problems of measuring the amount of information, the relation of information to meaning, and questions about the truth value of information have remained. Balancing attention between the process and the act of receiving information, and deterrnining the character of the receiver, has also been the focus of work and debate. Information science has mined work from other disciplines involving information theory and has also produced its own theory. The desire for theory remains (Hjorland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999), but what theory will deliver is unclear. The distinction between data and information, or communication and information, is not of concern here. The convention that data, at some point of use, become information, and that information is transferred in a process of communication suffices for this discussion. Substitution of any of these terms is not a problem. More problematic is the relationship between information and knowledge. It seems accepted that at some point the data by perception, or selection, become information, which feeds and alters knowledge structures in a human recipient. What that process of alteration is, and its implications, remain problematic. This review considers the following questions: 1. What can be gleaned from the history of reviews of information in information science? 2. What current maps, guides, and surveys are available to elaborate our understanding of the issues? 3. Is there a parallel development of work outside information science an information theory of use to us? 4. Is there a dominant view of information within information science? 5. What can we say about issues like measurement, meaning, and misinformation? 6. Is there other current work of relevance that can assist attempts, in information science, to develop a theory of information?