Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028412666 = product of:
  0.042618997 = sum of:
    0.025438042 = weight(_text_:based in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438042 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
    0.017180953 = product of:
      0.034361906 = sum of:
        0.034361906 = weight(_text_:22 in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034361906 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4452, 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=4452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Informational cities are prototypical cities of the knowledge society. If they are informational world cities, they are new centers of power. According to Manuel Castells (1989), in those cities space of flows (flows of money, power, and information) tend to override space of places. Information and communication technology infrastructures, cognitive infrastructures (as groundwork of knowledge cities and creative cities), and city-level knowledge management are of great importance. Digital libraries provide access to the global explicit knowledge. The informational city consists of creative clusters and spaces for personal contacts to stimulate sharing of implicit information. In such cities, we can observe job polarization in favor of well-trained employees. The corporate structure of informational cities is made up of financial services, knowledge-intensive high-tech industrial enterprises, companies of the information economy, and further creative and knowledge-intensive service enterprises. Weak location factors are facilities for culture, recreational activities, and consumption. Political willingness to create an informational city and e-governance activities are crucial aspects for the development of such cities. This conceptual article frames indicators which are able to mark the degree of "informativeness" of a city. Finally, based upon findings of network economy, we try to explain why certain cities master the transition to informational cities and others (lagging to relative insignificance) do not. The article connects findings of information science and of urbanistics and urban planning.

Date

3. 7.2011 19:22:49

0.020561326 = product of:
  0.061683975 = sum of:
    0.061683975 = weight(_text_:based in 4251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061683975 = score(doc=4251,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.40361002 = fieldWeight in 4251, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4251)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.01832635 = product of:
  0.05497905 = sum of:
    0.05497905 = product of:
      0.1099581 = sum of:
        0.1099581 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1099581 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Ratio. 22(1980), S.155-164

0.01832635 = product of:
  0.05497905 = sum of:
    0.05497905 = product of:
      0.1099581 = sum of:
        0.1099581 = weight(_text_:22 in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1099581 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Insider. 1995, Nr.4, Juli, S.19-22

0.01832635 = product of:
  0.05497905 = sum of:
    0.05497905 = product of:
      0.1099581 = sum of:
        0.1099581 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1099581 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.016035557 = product of:
  0.048106667 = sum of:
    0.048106667 = product of:
      0.09621333 = sum of:
        0.09621333 = weight(_text_:22 in 2407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09621333 = score(doc=2407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Password. 1998, H.10, S.22-28

0.011991608 = product of:
  0.035974823 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=4008,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.011871087 = product of:
  0.03561326 = sum of:
    0.03561326 = weight(_text_:based in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03561326 = score(doc=1835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.011749329 = product of:
  0.035247985 = sum of:
    0.035247985 = weight(_text_:based in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035247985 = score(doc=76,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.2306343 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.011453969 = product of:
  0.034361906 = sum of:
    0.034361906 = product of:
      0.06872381 = sum of:
        0.06872381 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06872381 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.009593287 = product of:
  0.028779859 = sum of:
    0.028779859 = weight(_text_:based in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028779859 = score(doc=2343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.009163175 = product of:
  0.027489524 = sum of:
    0.027489524 = product of:
      0.05497905 = sum of:
        0.05497905 = weight(_text_:22 in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05497905 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

23. 9.2010 11:15:22

0.008479347 = product of:
  0.025438042 = sum of:
    0.025438042 = weight(_text_:based in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438042 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.008017778 = product of:
  0.024053333 = sum of:
    0.024053333 = product of:
      0.048106667 = sum of:
        0.048106667 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048106667 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2014 18:56:46

0.0057269847 = product of:
  0.017180953 = sum of:
    0.017180953 = product of:
      0.034361906 = sum of:
        0.034361906 = weight(_text_:22 in 5773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034361906 = score(doc=5773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5773, 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=5773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Password. 2000, H.5, S.22-31

0.0057269847 = product of:
  0.017180953 = sum of:
    0.017180953 = product of:
      0.034361906 = sum of:
        0.034361906 = weight(_text_:22 in 1364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034361906 = score(doc=1364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1364, 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=1364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2003 19:39:36