Search (4710 results, page 1 of 236)

0.1778032 = sum of:
  0.06245701 = product of:
    0.18737103 = sum of:
      0.18737103 = weight(_text_:themes in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18737103 = score(doc=2749,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.49212003 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11534619 = sum of:
    0.059755553 = weight(_text_:making in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059755553 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059222404 = queryNorm
        0.21116824 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
    0.055590644 = weight(_text_:22 in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055590644 = score(doc=2749,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.059222404 = queryNorm
        0.268053 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)

Classification

658.4/038 22

Date

22. 3.2009 18:43:51

DDC

658.4/038 22

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 60(2006) no.3, S.642 (A.E. Prentice): "What is knowledge management (KM)? How do we define it? How do we use it and what are the benefits? KM is still an operational discipline that has yet to have an academic foundation. Its core has yet to solidify and concepts and practices remain fluid, making it difficult to discuss or even to identify the range of relevant elements. Being aware of this lack of a well-structured retrievable disciplinary literature, the editors made a practice of attending trade shows and conferences attended by KM professionals to look for presentations that would in some way expand knowledge of the field. They asked presenters to turn their paper into a book chapter, which is the major source of the material in this book. Although this is a somewhat chancy method of identifying authors and topics, several of the papers are excellent and a number add to an understanding of KM. Because of the fluidity of the area of study, the editors devised a three-dimensional topic expansion approach to the content so that the reader can follow themes in the papers that would not have been easy to do if one relied solely on the table of contents. The table of contents organizes the presentations into eight subject sections, each section with a foreword that introduces the topic and indicates briefly the contribution of each chapter to the overall section title. Following this, the Roadmap lists 18 topics or themes that appear in the book and relevant chapters where information on the theme can be found. Readers have the choice of following themes using the roadmap or of reading the book section by section. ..."

0.14372268 = sum of:
  0.05408936 = product of:
    0.16226807 = sum of:
      0.16226807 = weight(_text_:themes in 4960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16226807 = score(doc=4960,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.42618844 = fieldWeight in 4960, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4960)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.08963333 = product of:
    0.17926666 = sum of:
      0.17926666 = weight(_text_:making in 4960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17926666 = score(doc=4960,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.63350475 = fieldWeight in 4960, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4960)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand how microblogging communications change and contribute to collective sense-making over time during a crisis. Using B. Dervin's (1983) theory of sense-making applied to crises and communications during crises, we examined 7,184 microblogging communications sent in response to three violent crises that occurred on U.S. college campuses. The analysis of patterns of microblogging communications found that information-sharing behaviors dominated the early response phase of violent crises, and opinion sharing increased over time, peaking in the recovery phase of the crises. The analysis of individual microblogging communications identified various themes in the conversation threads that not only helped individual contributors make sense of the situation but also helped others who followed the conversation. The results of this study show that microblogging can play a vital role in collective sense-making during crises.

0.13887754 = sum of:
  0.09406087 = product of:
    0.2821826 = sum of:
      0.2821826 = weight(_text_:3a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2821826 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.5020882 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.044816665 = product of:
    0.08963333 = sum of:
      0.08963333 = weight(_text_:making in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08963333 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.31675237 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The employees of an organization often use a personal hierarchical classification scheme to organize digital documents that are stored on their own workstations. As this may make it hard for other employees to retrieve these documents, there is a risk that the organization will lose track of needed documentation. Furthermore, the inherent boundaries of such a hierarchical structure require making arbitrary decisions about which specific criteria the classification will b.e based on (for instance, the administrative activity or the document type, although a document can have several attributes and require classification in several classes).A faceted classification model to support corporate information organization is proposed. Partially based on Ranganathan's facets theory, this model aims not only to standardize the organization of digital documents, but also to simplify the management of a document throughout its life cycle for both individuals and organizations, while ensuring compliance to regulatory and policy requirements.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4755313%2F4755314%2F04755480.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4755480&authDecision=-203.

0.13777624 = product of:
  0.27555248 = sum of:
    0.27555248 = sum of:
      0.17926666 = weight(_text_:making in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17926666 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.63350475 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.09628581 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09628581 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: From classification to thesauri: making good use of facets

0.13559493 = product of:
  0.27118987 = sum of:
    0.27118987 = sum of:
      0.20699932 = weight(_text_:making in 5512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20699932 = score(doc=5512,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.7315083 = fieldWeight in 5512, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5512)
      0.064190544 = weight(_text_:22 in 5512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064190544 = score(doc=5512,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5512, 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=5512)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Proposes a conceptual model to examine hypertext information presentation effects on decision making performance when compared with traditional sequentional information presentation and access. Considers which combination of task knowledge type (superficial, and causal) and information presentation styles (sequential, hypertext) yield the best decision making performance. This is achieved by comparing performance effect of hypertext and sequential information presentation when applied to superficial and causal type of knowledge required for the task. The 2 surrogates used for measuring the outcome of the performance effects are decision time and secision accuracy

Date

24.10.1996 19:57:22

0.13408715 = sum of:
  0.10199188 = product of:
    0.30597562 = sum of:
      0.30597562 = weight(_text_:themes in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.30597562 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.8036286 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.032095272 = product of:
    0.064190544 = sum of:
      0.064190544 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064190544 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.13225017 = sum of:
  0.10817872 = product of:
    0.32453614 = sum of:
      0.32453614 = weight(_text_:themes in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.32453614 = score(doc=4152,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.8523769 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024071453 = product of:
    0.048142906 = sum of:
      0.048142906 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048142906 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.

Date

17. 2.2018 18:22:25

0.13088821 = sum of:
  0.07807127 = product of:
    0.2342138 = sum of:
      0.2342138 = weight(_text_:themes in 5648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2342138 = score(doc=5648,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.61515003 = fieldWeight in 5648, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5648)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.052816946 = product of:
    0.10563389 = sum of:
      0.10563389 = weight(_text_:making in 5648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10563389 = score(doc=5648,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.37329626 = fieldWeight in 5648, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5648)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to first articulate and then illustrate a descriptive theoretical model of documentation (i.e. document creation) suitable for analysis of the experiential, first-person perspective. Design/methodology/approach Three models of documentation in the literature are presented and synthesized into a new model. This model is then used to understand the findings from a phenomenology-of-practice study of the work of seven visual artists as they each created a self-portrait, understood here as a form of documentation. Findings A number of themes are found to express the first-person experience of art-making in these examples, including communicating, memories, reference materials, taking breaks and stepping back. The themes are discussed with an eye toward articulating what is shared and unique in these experiences. Finally, the themes are mapped successfully to the theoretical model. Research limitations/implications The study involved artists creating self-portraits, and further research will be required to determine if the thematic findings are unique to self-portraiture or apply as well to art-making, to documentation generally, etc. Still, the theoretical model developed here seems useful for analyzing documentation experiences. Practical implications As many activities and tasks in contemporary life can be conceptualized as documentation, this model provides a valuable analytical tool for better understanding those experiences. This can ground education and management decisions for those involved. Originality/value This paper makes conceptual and empirical contributions to document theory and the study of the information behavior of artists, particularly furthering discussions of information and document experience.

0.12749615 = sum of:
  0.090148926 = product of:
    0.27044678 = sum of:
      0.27044678 = weight(_text_:themes in 4157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.27044678 = score(doc=4157,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.71031404 = fieldWeight in 4157, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4157)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.03734722 = product of:
    0.07469444 = sum of:
      0.07469444 = weight(_text_:making in 4157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07469444 = score(doc=4157,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.2639603 = fieldWeight in 4157, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4157)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine whether there is a need to consider gender or sex differences as variables in information behaviour research and, if so, how? Design/methodology/approach - A metasynthesis approach is used. A preliminary framework to categorise information behaviour research on women is developed by integrating main themes from feminist research and information behaviour research. Within each category, studies are compared and contrasted, to identify similar and divergent themes. Themes are then compared across categories, to synthesise the main concepts. Findings - The categorisation works for most studies, apart from a group of studies on health information use, communicating risk and decision making. The meta-synthesis indicates the importance of concepts such as situation (as mesh), intermediaries (as node with connections), and connecting behaviour. Gender-related or, rather gender-ascribed, constructs, such as concern for others, not gender alone are likely to be important variables in information behaviour. Research limitations/implications - The meta-synthesis is a top-level synthesis, as the number of studies prohibited a more detailed approach. Further meta-synthesis of a few high quality research studies would help to confirm the findings. Practical implications - The synthesis illuminates a different perspective on information behaviour: the network of information users rather than the individual information seeker. Originality/value - The synthesis integrates some feminist research themes with information behaviour research, and the findings have implications for general information behaviour research.

0.118871 = product of:
  0.237742 = sum of:
    0.237742 = sum of:
      0.19762293 = weight(_text_:making in 3438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19762293 = score(doc=3438,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.6983734 = fieldWeight in 3438, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3438)
      0.04011909 = weight(_text_:22 in 3438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04011909 = score(doc=3438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3438, 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=3438)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This investigation examines perceptions of normality emerging from two distinct studies of information behavior associated with life disrupting health symptoms and theorizes the search for normality in the context of sense making theory. Study I explored the experiences of women striving to make sense of symptoms associated with menopause; Study II examined posts from two online discussion groups for people with symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder. Joint data analysis demonstrates that normality was initially perceived as the absence of illness. A breakdown in perceived normality because of disruptive symptoms created gaps and discontinuities in understanding. As participants interacted with information about the experiences of health-challenged peers, socially constructed notions of normality emerged. This was internalized as a "new normal." Findings demonstrate normality as an element of sense making that changes and develops over time, and experiential information and social contexts as central to health-related sense making. Re-establishing perceptions of normality, as experienced by health-challenged peers, was an important element of sense making. This investigation provides nuanced insight into notions of normality, extends understanding of social processes involved in sense making, and represents the first theorizing of and model development for normality within the information science and sense making literature.

Date

16.11.2017 13:29:22

0.11813232 = sum of:
  0.09406087 = product of:
    0.2821826 = sum of:
      0.2821826 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2821826 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.5020882 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024071453 = product of:
    0.048142906 = sum of:
      0.048142906 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048142906 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.11732625 = sum of:
  0.08924289 = product of:
    0.26772866 = sum of:
      0.26772866 = weight(_text_:themes in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26772866 = score(doc=1900,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.70317507 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.028083362 = product of:
    0.056166723 = sum of:
      0.056166723 = weight(_text_:22 in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056166723 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1900, 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=1900)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper presents a coword-analysis-based system called SDOC which is able to pupport the intellectual work of an end-user who is searching for information in a bibliographic database. This is done by presenting its thematical structure as a map of keyword clusters (themes) on a graphical user interface. These mapping facilities are demonstrated on the basis of the research field Social History given by a set of documents from the social science literature database SOLIS. Besides the traditional way of analysing a coword map as a strategic diagram, the notion of cluster relationships analysis is introduced which provides an adequate interpretation of links between themes

Source

Knowledge organization. 22(1995) no.2, S.70-77

0.11732625 = sum of:
  0.08924289 = product of:
    0.26772866 = sum of:
      0.26772866 = weight(_text_:themes in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26772866 = score(doc=2635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.70317507 = fieldWeight in 2635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2635)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.028083362 = product of:
    0.056166723 = sum of:
      0.056166723 = weight(_text_:22 in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056166723 = score(doc=2635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2635, 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=2635)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach for integrating multiple sources of semantics for the creating metadata. A new framework is proposed to define topics and themes with both manually and automatically generated terms. The automatically generated terms include: terms from a semantic analysis of the collections and terms from previous user's queries. An interface is developed to facilitate the creation and use of such topics and themes for metadata creation. The framework and the interface promote human-computer collaboration in metadata creation. Several principles underlying such approach are also discussed.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.11660239 = product of:
  0.23320478 = sum of:
    0.23320478 = sum of:
      0.16901423 = weight(_text_:making in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16901423 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.597274 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.064190544 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064190544 = score(doc=3355,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3355, 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=3355)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the problems associated with electronic archiving and draws attention to work by the University of Pittsburgh on developing a standard for archiving electronic documents. Examines elements of effective archival and records management and considers the problems associated with archives such as backlogs and time taken to search for information. The basis of good records management lies in making responsible choices

Date

22. 2.1996 9:30:18

0.11660239 = product of:
  0.23320478 = sum of:
    0.23320478 = sum of:
      0.16901423 = weight(_text_:making in 7232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16901423 = score(doc=7232,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.597274 = fieldWeight in 7232, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7232)
      0.064190544 = weight(_text_:22 in 7232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064190544 = score(doc=7232,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7232, 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=7232)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the complex nature of urban, regional and local documents management, the decision making process of an in house classification system, and problems of converting a manual card cataloguing system to an computerized information retrieval system at Florida International University Library. The principles of this in house classification system can be used for any specialized collection

Footnote

Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95

0.115731284 = sum of:
  0.078384064 = product of:
    0.23515218 = sum of:
      0.23515218 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23515218 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.5020882 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.03734722 = product of:
    0.07469444 = sum of:
      0.07469444 = weight(_text_:making in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07469444 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.2639603 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What is the difference between Piaget's constructivism and Papert's "constructionism"? Beyond the mere play on the words, I think the distinction holds, and that integrating both views can enrich our understanding of how people learn and grow. Piaget's constructivism offers a window into what children are interested in, and able to achieve, at different stages of their development. The theory describes how children's ways of doing and thinking evolve over time, and under which circumstance children are more likely to let go of-or hold onto- their currently held views. Piaget suggests that children have very good reasons not to abandon their worldviews just because someone else, be it an expert, tells them they're wrong. Papert's constructionism, in contrast, focuses more on the art of learning, or 'learning to learn', and on the significance of making things in learning. Papert is interested in how learners engage in a conversation with [their own or other people's] artifacts, and how these conversations boost self-directed learning, and ultimately facilitate the construction of new knowledge. He stresses the importance of tools, media, and context in human development. Integrating both perspectives illuminates the processes by which individuals come to make sense of their experience, gradually optimizing their interactions with the world.

Content

Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.

0.11539036 = sum of:
  0.06310426 = product of:
    0.18931276 = sum of:
      0.18931276 = weight(_text_:themes in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18931276 = score(doc=13,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.49721986 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.052286107 = product of:
    0.104572214 = sum of:
      0.104572214 = weight(_text_:making in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.104572214 = score(doc=13,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.36954442 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.11539036 = sum of:
  0.06310426 = product of:
    0.18931276 = sum of:
      0.18931276 = weight(_text_:themes in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18931276 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38074255 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.49721986 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.052286107 = product of:
    0.104572214 = sum of:
      0.104572214 = weight(_text_:making in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.104572214 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.36954442 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes and compares 5 approaches to understanding the concept of the information society and identifies significant themes and controversies in the information science literature. The major topics discussed include: the concept of the information society (continuitiy or discontinuity); assumptions on the nature of information (information as a commodity or a public good); the role and social impact of information technology (optimistic, pessimistic or pluralistic view); and the provision and distribution of government information and services (tension between public and private sectors). Analyses how these underlying belief structures have influenced government information policies in the USA and how they might influence future policy making

0.11481353 = product of:
  0.22962706 = sum of:
    0.22962706 = sum of:
      0.14938888 = weight(_text_:making in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14938888 = score(doc=117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.5279206 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
      0.08023818 = weight(_text_:22 in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08023818 = score(doc=117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 117, 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=117)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2009 19:51:28

0.10514513 = product of:
  0.21029025 = sum of:
    0.21029025 = sum of:
      0.119511105 = weight(_text_:making in 6411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.119511105 = score(doc=6411,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28297603 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.4223365 = fieldWeight in 6411, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.778192 = idf(docFreq=1010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6411)
      0.09077914 = weight(_text_:22 in 6411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09077914 = score(doc=6411,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20738676 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059222404 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 6411, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6411)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der amerikanische Philosoph Robert Bradom, der Hegel, den 'kontinetalsten' aller europäischen Denker, in die angelsächsische Tradition der analytischen Philosophie zu integrieren sucht, galt hierzulande öange als Geheimtipp. Jetzt ist sein Hauptwerk 'Making it explicit' auf Deutsch erschienen ("Expressive Vernunft: Begründung, Repräsentation und diskursive Festlegung". Jürgen Habermas erklärt, warum Brandom auch diesseits des Atlantiks von Bedeutung ist

Date

22. 6.2000 12:12:26

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.141 vom 20.6.2000, S.22