Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027971694 = product of:
  0.069929235 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 683, 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=683)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Considers the types of information that are generally involved in information policy, from data, through information with varying degrees of structure, to knowledge and perhaps to wisdom. Information with lower levels of structure and raw data may be managed by systems, technical and administrative, and by procedures. Knowledge can only be managed by policies. There is, therefore, a close link between information policy formulation and evaluation and the emerging discipline of knowledge management. Concludes that information policy is: inevitably complex, not concerned with technical solutions; and dependent upon an appreciation of the meaning and significance of knowledge in its proper context

Source

Understanding information policy. Proceedings of a British Library funded Information Policy Unit Workshop, Cumberland Lodge, UK, 22-24 July 1996. Ed. by Ian Rowlands

0.027971694 = product of:
  0.069929235 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 3361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3361)
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3361, 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=3361)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This chapter considers the continuing relevance of the ideas of browsing, serendipity, information encountering and literature discovery in the context of the information retrieval (IR) environment of 2010, though its scope extends to the ideas in the broader contexts of information seeking and information-related behaviour. It is based around a selective review of the literature since 1990 and reflection and speculation on the results. The central focus is on questions of how the concept of browsing, serendipity and related ideas have changed in the new IR environment of the web and whether, indeed, they are still meaningfull concepts.

Pages

S.1-22

0.013047772 = product of:
  0.06523886 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 2828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=2828,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 2828, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2828)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

SIBRIS (Sandwich Interactive Browsing and Ranking Information System) is an interactive text retrieval system which has been developed to support the browsing of library and product files at Pfizer Central Research, Sandwich, UK. Once an initial ranking has been produced, the system will allow the user to select any document displayed on the screen at any point during the browse and to use that as the basis for another search. Facilities have been included to enable the user to keep track of the browse and to facilitate backtracking, thus allowing the user to move away from the original query to wander in and out of different areas of interest.

0.0129114855 = product of:
  0.064557426 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The nature of distance learning in general, and for the specific case of LIS professional development, is reviewed in the context of wider changes in the learning environment. This leads to an analysis of the kind of materials and activities which may be required to support this form of education, and to proposals for categories of activities, which are to be tested in a part distance learning multinational LIS summer school.

0.011412249 = product of:
  0.057061244 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=816,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper seeks to outline an approach to a unified framework for understanding the concept of "information" in the physical, biological and human domains, and to see what links and interactions may be found between them. It also aims to re-examine the information science discipline, with a view to locating it in a larger context, so as to reflect on the possibility that information science may not only draw from these other disciplines, but that its insights may contribute to them. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of an extensive literature review and analysis, loosely based on the approaches of Stonier, Madden and Bates, and including analysis of both scientific and library/information literature. Findings - The paper identifies the concept of information as being identified with organised complexity in the physical domain, with meaning in context in the biological domain, and with Kvanvig's concept of understanding in the human domain. The linking thread is laws of emergent self-organised complexity, applicable in all domains. Argues that a unified perspective for the information sciences, based on Popperian ontology, may be derived, with the possibility of not merely drawing insights from physical and biological science, but also of contributing to them. Based on Hirst's educational philosophy, derives a definition for the information sciences around two poles: information science and library/information management.

0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines the patterns and formats of information provision by newspapers and television news programmes, with a case study of 2 incidents from the Gulf War. Carries out a content analysis, with a novel scheme of groups and categories to interpret and display information transfer patterns. The results are set in the context of a survey of the nature of news, and the influence of the media by which it is presented. Finds a clear distinction between television and newspaper information content and format, and explains it in terms of an underlying information structure. Considers consequences for public access to information

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Introduction. This short paper proposes that a unified concept of information as a form of self-organized complexity may be equally applicable to the physical, biological and human/social domains. This is seen as the evolutionary emergence of organized complexity in the physical universe, meaning in context in the biological domain, and understanding through knowledge in the human domain. Method.This study is based on analysis of literature from a wide range of disciplines. Conclusions.This perspective allows for the possibility that not only may the library/information sciences be able to draw insights from the natural sciences, but that library and information science research and scholarship may in turn contribute insights to these disciplines, normally thought of as more 'fundamental'.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide an analysis of the notion of "information poverty" in library and information science (LIS) by investigating concepts, interests and strategies leading to its construction and thus to examine its role as a constitutive element of the professional discourse. Design/methodology/approach - Starting from a Foucauldian notion of discourse, "information poverty" is examined as a statement in its relation to other statements in order to highlight assumptions and factors contributing to its construction. The analysis is based on repeated and close reading of 35 English language articles published in LIS journals between 1995 and 2005. Findings - Four especially productive discursive procedures are identified: economic determinism, technological determinism and the "information society", historicising the "information poor", and the library profession's moral obligation and responsibility. Research limitations/implications - The material selection is linguistically and geographically biased. Most of the included articles originate in English-speaking countries. Therefore, results and findings are fully applicable only in an English language context. Originality/value - The focus on overlapping and at times conflicting discursive procedures, i.e. the results of alliances and connections between statements, highlights how the "information poor" emerge as a category in LIS as the product of institutionally contingent, professional discourse. By challenging often unquestioned underlying assumptions, this article is intended to contribute to a critical examination of LIS discourse, as well as to the analysis of the discourses of information, which dominate contemporary society. It is furthermore seen to add to the development of discourse analytical approaches in LIS research.

0.005376595 = product of:
  0.026882974 = sum of:
    0.026882974 = product of:
      0.08064892 = sum of:
        0.08064892 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08064892 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, 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=844)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 6.2008 16:22:20

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach - A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings - Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications - Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications - The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the "Google phenomenon". Originality/value - This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in-depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

At the heart of any discussion of the information sciences, at least when this discussion is held in the English language, lies the problem of the variant, and shifting, set of concepts and meanings of the terms 'library' and 'information'. The term 'information', in particular, has a variety of meanings in different contexts and communities of discourse, providing an excellent example of Wittgenstein's language game. This implies that any terminology built around this central concept is in danger of being constructed on 'shifting sands'. This article outlines, for the English language only, some of these diverse meanings of information, and their consequences for the terminology of the information sciences. It focuses on the variant relationships between information and related concepts, particularly data and knowledge. It also includes an account of the view information taken in the hard and soft methodologies of system science, as well as the new discipline of 'information physics'. From this, some remarks may be made on the changing meanings of the complex terms such as 'information technology' and 'information literacy', as well as those complex terms involving 'management', information management, knowledge management, document management etc. A similar, though shorter, treatment will de given to terminology around the 'library' concept, particularly in view of the change toward viewing a library as an organised virtual information space, rather than physical environment.

0.0031002287 = product of:
  0.015501143 = sum of:
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 1.2019 16:29:16

0.0026882975 = product of:
  0.013441487 = sum of:
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 730, 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=730)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 1.2007 12:03:22