Search (89 results, page 2 of 5)

0.007561039 = product of:
  0.018902598 = sum of:
    0.0066735395 = weight(_text_:a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066735395 = score(doc=76,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
    0.012229058 = product of:
      0.024458116 = sum of:
        0.024458116 = weight(_text_:information in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024458116 = score(doc=76,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3004734 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.385-389

Type

a

0.0074652806 = product of:
  0.018663201 = sum of:
    0.010769378 = weight(_text_:a in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010769378 = score(doc=865,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=865,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.

Type

a

0.0073902505 = product of:
  0.018475626 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=13,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
    0.007814486 = product of:
      0.015628971 = sum of:
        0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015628971 = score(doc=13,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Scientific documents are more or less important in relation to give subjects and this importance can be measured. An empirical investigation into philosophical information was carried out using a weighting algorithm developed by N. Henrichs which results in a distribution by weighting of documents on an average philosophical subject. With the aid of statistical methods a threshold value can be obtained that separates the important and unimportant documents on a subject. The knowledge of theis threshold value is important for various practical and theoretic questions: providing new possibilities for research strategy in information retrieval; evaluation of the 'titleworthiness' of subjects by comparison of document titles and themes for which the document at hand is important; and making available data on thematic trends for scientific results

Type

a

0.007058388 = product of:
  0.01764597 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Ein Besprechungsaufsatz zur Festschrift für E. Garfield: The Web of knowledge: Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: Information Today 2000.

Type

a

0.0065762657 = product of:
  0.016440663 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=2792,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
    0.008825562 = product of:
      0.017651124 = sum of:
        0.017651124 = weight(_text_:information in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017651124 = score(doc=2792,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Some documents provoke emotions in people viewing them. Will it be possible to describe emotions consistently and use this information in retrieval systems? We tested collective (statistically aggregated) emotion indexing using images as examples. Considering psychological results, basic emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness. This study follows an approach developed by Lee and Neal (2007) for music emotion retrieval and applies scroll bars for tagging basic emotions and their intensities. A sample comprising 763 persons tagged emotions caused by images (retrieved from www.Flickr.com) applying scroll bars and (linguistic) tags. Using SPSS, we performed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. For more than half of the images, the test persons have clear emotion favorites. There are prototypical images for given emotions. The document-specific consistency of tagging using a scroll bar is, for some images, very high. Most of the (most commonly used) linguistic tags are on the basic level (in the sense of Rosch's basic level theory). The distributions of the linguistic tags in our examples follow an inverse power-law. Hence, it seems possible to apply collective image emotion tagging to image information systems and to present a new search option for basic emotions. This article is one of the first steps in the research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.5, S.863-876

Type

a

0.0061404295 = product of:
  0.015351074 = sum of:
    0.009036016 = weight(_text_:a in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009036016 = score(doc=5249,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=5249,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.13, S.1155-1168

Type

a

0.00588199 = product of:
  0.014704974 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 2523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=2523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2523)
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 2523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=2523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Insbesondere durch die Suchmaschinen im Internet wurde die Aufmerksamkeit der Information Professionals auf Retrievalmöglichkeiten jenseits der Booleschen Operatoren gelenkt. Auch die kommerziellen Online-Archive entwickelten in den letzten Jahren natürlichsprachige Suchoptionen. Lexis-Nexis erhielt im Laufe des Jahres 1998 2 Patente für Module automatischer Indexierung erteilt.

Type

a

0.00588199 = product of:
  0.014704974 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Online-Archive erreichen im Deutschland der Jahrtausendwende eine 'Informationselite' von professionellen Information Brokern oder Onlinern, die nicht mehr als schätzungsweise 10.000 Personen beträgt. Die theoretisch erwartete Position in der Informationsgesellschaft nehmen die Hosts nicht ein. Unsere zentrale Frage lautet: Bedienen sich die Online-Hosts eines optimalen Marketing?

Type

a

0.00588199 = product of:
  0.014704974 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3408, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3408)
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 3408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=3408,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3408, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Auf dem Weg zur Informationskultur: Wa(h)re Information? Festschrift für Norbert Henrichs zum 65. Geburtstag, Hrsg.: T.A. Schröder

Type

a

0.005751905 = product of:
  0.014379762 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=5116,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

There are at least three possible ways that documents are distributed by relevance: informetric (power law), inverse logistic, and dichotomous. The nature of the type of distribution has implications for the construction of relevance ranking algorithms for search engines, for automated (blind) relevance feedback, for user behavior when using Web search engines, for combining of outputs of search engines for metasearch, for topic detection and tracking, and for the methodology of evaluation of information retrieval systems.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1126-1129

Type

a

0.005751905 = product of:
  0.014379762 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=559)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=559,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 559, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Einleitungsartikel zu einem Themenheft. Informationswissenschaft umfasst als Kerndisziplinen Information Retrieval, Wissensrepräsentation, Informetrie (einschließlich Web Science), Wissensmanagement und die Erforschung von Informations- bzw. Wissensgesellschaft und der Informationsmärkte (Stock & Stock, 2012). In vielen Forschungsprojekten befassen sich Informationswissenschaftler mit Themen, die auch von anderen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen bearbeitet werden. Informationswissenschaft ist also durchaus (auch) eine interdisziplinäre Angelegenheit. Dieses Themenheft von IWP stellt die Interdisziplinarität von Informationswissenschaft anhand von Beispielen der Forschungsergebnisse aus Düsseldorf in den Vordergrund.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.4, S.215-216

Type

a

0.005751905 = product of:
  0.014379762 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 3237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=3237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3237, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3237)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 3237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=3237,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3237, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Norbert Henrichs war ein bedeutender Pionier der Informationswissenschaft in Deutschland. Wir widmen uns der von ihm aufgebauten Philosophiedokumentation und der damit eng verbundenen Textwortmethode sowie einer frühen Form der informetrischen Themenanalyse. Herausgestellt wird seine führende Rolle beim Bemühen um eine Institutionalisierung der Informationswissenschaft, die allerdings mit der nachhaltigen Etablierung der Gesellschaft für Information und Dokumentation (GID) nicht gelang. In seinem Spätwerk hinterfragte Henrichs den kapitalistischen Informationsmarkt und stellt das "Menschsein im Informationszeitalter" in den Fokus seiner Betrachtungen.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 67(2016) H.4, S.257-268

Type

a

0.005513504 = product of:
  0.01378376 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=79,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

HistCite(TM) is a software tool for analyzing and visualizing direct citation linkages between scientific papers. Its inputs are bibliographic records (with cited references) from "Web of Knowledge" or other sources. Its outputs are various tables and graphs with informetric indicators about the knowledge domain under study. As an example we analyze informetrically the literature about Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher and psychologist. The article shortly discusses the informetric functionality of "Web of Knowledge" and shows broadly the possibilities that HistCite offers to its users (e.g. scientists, scientometricans and science journalists).

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.391-400

Type

a

0.005513504 = product of:
  0.01378376 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 4251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=4251,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4251, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4251)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 4251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=4251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The book offers a critical evaluation of Qatar's path from oil- and gas-based industries to a knowledge-based economy. This book gives basic information about the region and the country, including the geographic and demographic data, the culture, the politics and the economy, the health care conditions and the education system. It introduces the concepts of knowledge society and knowledge-based development and adds factual details about Qatar by interpreting indicators of the development status.

0.0054589617 = product of:
  0.0136474045 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=4008,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
    0.006836252 = product of:
      0.013672504 = sum of:
        0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013672504 = score(doc=4008,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Concept-based information retrieval and knowledge representation are in need of a theory of concepts and semantic relations. Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of knowledge organization systems (KOS) (such as ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 in the U.S.A. or DIN 2331:1980 in Germany) do not consider results of concept theory and theory of relations to the full extent. They are not able to unify the currently different worlds of traditional controlled vocabularies, of the social web (tagging and folksonomies) and of the semantic web (ontologies). Concept definitions as well as semantic relations are based on epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and critical theory). A concept is determined via its intension and extension as well as by definition. We will meet the problem of vagueness by introducing prototypes. Some important definitions are concept explanations (after Aristotle) and the definition of family resemblances (in the sense of Wittgenstein). We will model concepts as frames (according to Barsalou). The most important paradigmatic relation in KOS is hierarchy, which must be arranged into different classes: Hyponymy consists of taxonomy and simple hyponymy, meronymy consists of many different part-whole-relations. For practical application purposes, the transitivity of the given relation is very important. Unspecific associative relations are of little help to our focused applications and should be replaced by generalizable and domain-specific relations. We will discuss the reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity of paradigmatic relations as well as the appearance of specific semantic relations in the different kinds of KOS (folksonomies, nomenclatures, classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies). Finally, we will pick out KOS as a central theme of the Semantic Web.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.1951-1969

Type

a

0.0050708996 = product of:
  0.012677249 = sum of:
    0.0072082467 = weight(_text_:a in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072082467 = score(doc=2343,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
    0.0054690014 = product of:
      0.010938003 = sum of:
        0.010938003 = weight(_text_:information in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010938003 = score(doc=2343,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

Type

a

0.005032917 = product of:
  0.012582293 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=1835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
    0.007814486 = product of:
      0.015628971 = sum of:
        0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015628971 = score(doc=1835,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Transitive Meronymie. Automatische begriffsbasierte Suchanfrageerweiterung unter Nutzung gewichteter transitiver Teil-Ganzes-Relationen. Unsere theoretisch orientierte Arbeit isoliert transitive Teil-Ganzes-Beziehungen. Wir diskutieren den Einsatz der Meronymie bei der automatischen begriffsbasierten Suchanfrageerweiterung im Information Retrieval. Aus praktischen Gründen schlagen wir vor, die Bestandsrelationen zu spezifizieren und die einzelnen Arten mit unterschiedlichen Gewichtungswerten zu versehen, die im Retrieval genutzt werden. Für das Design von Wissensordnungen ist bedeutsam, dass innerhalb der Begriffsleiter einer Abstraktionsrelation ein Begriff alle seine Teile (sowie alle transitiven Teile der Teile) an seine Unterbegriffe vererbt.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.3, S.165-170

Type

a

0.0049910345 = product of:
  0.012477586 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.2, S.77-90

Type

a

0.0049160775 = product of:
  0.012290194 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=3688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=3688,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: nfd 51(2000) H.8, S.496-497 (W. v. Hahn); ProLibris 6(2001) H.1, S.62 (R. Depping); B.I.I. online 4(2001) H.2, S.216-217 (D. Schmidmaier); Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis 25(2001) H.1, S.114-115 (A. Halle)

RSWK

Informationswirtschaft / Information und Dokumentation / Wirtschaftsinformation (213) (321)

Subject

Informationswirtschaft / Information und Dokumentation / Wirtschaftsinformation (213) (321)

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.0049160775 = product of:
  0.012290194 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 4014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=4014,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4014, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4014)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 4014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=4014,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4014, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Die Informationswissenschaft im Sinne des Düsseldorfer Forschungsprogramms untersucht das Auswerten, Bereitstellen, Suchen und Finden von relevantem (vorwiegend digital vorliegendem) Wissen. Sie umfasst ein Spektrum von fünf Teildisziplinen. Eine zentrale Rolle spielt das Information Retrieval, die Wissenschaft der Suchmaschinen unter Berücksichtigung technischer Systeme und Informationsbedürfnisse der Nutzer. Wissensrepräsentation thematisiert Metadaten sowie Methoden und Werkzeuge für den Einsatz beim Indexieren und Referieren. Anwendungsnahe Teilgebiete sind das Wissensmanagement mit der Konzentration auf das (Ver-)Teilen unternehmensinternen Wissens und der Integration externen Wissens in die betriebliche Informationswirtschaft sowie Forschungen zum Informationsmarkt mit einem weiten Gegenstandsbereich, der sich von der Informationsinfrastruktur eines Landes über die Branche elektronischer Informationsdienste und dem Informationsrecht bis hin zur Netzökonomie erstreckt. Informationswissenschaft geht - soweit möglich - empirisch vor und erfasst ihre Gegenstände mittels quantitativer Methoden. Informetrische Forschungen umfassen die deskriptive Informetrie, die Webometrie, die Szientometrie genauso wie die Evaluation von Informationssystemen und Nutzer- sowie Informationsbedarfsanalysen. Die Informationswissenschaft der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf verfolgt ein Forschungsprogramm, das sich allen Teildisziplinen widmet. Unser Begriff von "Forschungsprogramm" folgt den wissenschaftstheoretischen Überlegungen von Imre Lakatos.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.2, S.73-74

Type

a