Search (481 results, page 1 of 25)

0.055615537 = product of:
  0.22246215 = sum of:
    0.22246215 = weight(_text_:having in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22246215 = score(doc=1448,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.5607334 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social question-and-answer (Q&A) sites are platforms where users can freely ask, share, and rate knowledge. For the sustainable growth of social Q&A sites, maintaining askers is as critical as maintaining answerers. Based on motivational affordances theory and self-determination theory, this study explores the influence of the design elements of social Q&A sites (i.e., upvotes, downvotes, edits, user profile, and comments) on the survival of new askers. In addition, the moderating effect of having an alternative experience is examined. Online data on 25,000 new askers from the top five Q&A sites in the Technology category of the Stack Exchange network are analyzed using logistic regression. The results show that the competency- and autonomy-related design features of social Q&A sites motivate new askers to continue participating. Surprisingly, having an alternative experience shows a negative moderating effect, implying that alternative experiences increase switching costs in the Stack Exchange network. This study provides valuable insights for administrators of social Q&A sites as well as academics.

0.045880474 = product of:
  0.1835219 = sum of:
    0.1835219 = weight(_text_:having in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1835219 = score(doc=729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.4625814 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The referencing habits of scholars, having abandoned physical bibliography for harvesting of digital resources, are in crisis, endangering the bibliographical infrastructure supporting the domain of knowledge organization. Research must be carefully managed and its circumstances controlled. Bibliographical replicability is one important part of the social role of scholarship. References in Knowledge Organization volume 45 (2018) were compiled and analyzed to help visualize the state of referencing in the KO domain. The dependence of science on the ability to replicate is even more critical in a global distributed digital environment. There is great richness in KO that make it even more critical that our scholarly community tend to the relationship between bibliographical verity and the very replicability that is allowing the field to grow theoretically over time.

0.03932612 = product of:
  0.15730448 = sum of:
    0.15730448 = weight(_text_:having in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15730448 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.39649835 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Contrary to a popular belief of lawyers having the most strict perception of law, law professionals actually strongly skew toward more favorable views of digital sharing. According to our qualitative study, relying on in-depth interviews with 50 Harvard lawyers, digital piracy is quite acceptable. It is considered fair, especially among friends and for noncommercial purposes. We argue that this not only can indicate that the existing law is becoming outdated because of its inability to be enforced, but also that ethically it is not corresponding to what is considered fair, good service, or being societally beneficial. The common perception of relying on a fixed price for digital content is eroding. We show that on the verges of business, society, and law, there is a potential for the new paradigm of digital commons to emerge.

0.03932612 = product of:
  0.15730448 = sum of:
    0.15730448 = weight(_text_:having in 2163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15730448 = score(doc=2163,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.39649835 = fieldWeight in 2163, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2163)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Linked Open Data (LOD) are a set of principles for publishing structured, connected data available for reuse under an open license. The objective of this paper is to analyze the publishing of bibliographic data such as LOD, having as a product the elaboration of theoretical-methodological recommendations for the publication of these data, in an approach based on the ten best practices for publishing LOD, from the World Wide Web Consortium. The starting point was the conduction of a Systematic Review of Literature, where initiatives to publish bibliographic data such as LOD were identified. An empirical study of these institutions was also conducted. As a result, theoretical-methodological recommendations were obtained for the process of publishing bibliographic data such as LOD.

0.03932612 = product of:
  0.15730448 = sum of:
    0.15730448 = weight(_text_:having in 2354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15730448 = score(doc=2354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.39649835 = fieldWeight in 2354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2354)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

AI is increasingly used to enhance images and videos, both intentionally and unintentionally. As AI editing tools become more integrated into smartphones, users can modify or animate photos into realistic videos. This study examines the impact of AI-altered visuals on false memories--recollections of events that didn't occur or deviate from reality. In a pre-registered study, 200 participants were divided into four conditions of 50 each. Participants viewed original images, completed a filler task, then saw stimuli corresponding to their assigned condition: unedited images, AI-edited images, AI-generated videos, or AI-generated videos of AI-edited images. AI-edited visuals significantly increased false recollections, with AI-generated videos of AI-edited images having the strongest effect (2.05x compared to control). Confidence in false memories was also highest for this condition (1.19x compared to control). We discuss potential applications in HCI, such as therapeutic memory reframing, and challenges in ethical, legal, political, and societal domains.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=920)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=937)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Smart electric meters collect data on electricity use to potentially improve efficiency for utilities, shape power consumption, and ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Consumer groups and experts have raised concerns about privacy, as smart meters can provide detailed information about activity within the home. This study examines privacy beliefs of U.S. consumers using qualitative data from focus groups together with experimental data from a national online survey of utility customers. Exploratory analysis of focus group findings suggested that consumers who felt in control of their data perceived fewer risks and more benefits from having access to the data. Participants in the online experiment saw greater risk and less benefit when advised that smart meters could be used to raise prices under time-of-use pricing. Participants also saw greater risk when the utility shared customer data with a third party. Risks and benefits influenced perceptions of control. These findings accord with several information privacy frameworks adding new insights about consumers' perceived control over their energy data. The findings can inform utility companies and policymakers with respect to giving consumers more control over their data, reducing consumers' privacy concerns, communicating benefits of smart meter data, and providing accurate information about the risks.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While it is widely recognized that value perception increases when individuals engage in making physical objects, the impact of peer presence on value perception during production or consumption has not been studied. Peer production is prevalent for information products, which are the focus of the present study. Most research to date has focused on value as perceived by consumers, while consumers are increasingly involved in online processes of information production. Information, being intangible and experiential, is a unique type of good. This study places participants in the position of producing or consuming information in order to assess effects of peer group size on value perceptions. Six hundred and fifty one participants took part in 16 information consumption and production experiments. Consumers read information and producers created the same information. Consumers' willingness-to-pay and producers' willingness-to-accept payment were measured before or after peer consumption and production. Results indicate that value perception is highest when participants consume information individually, declining in small and medium-sized groups and growing in mass consumption. Generally, post-consumption values are higher. In production, point of measurement is cardinal. Before production, value perceived individually is lowest, however, having experienced peer production, individuals ascribe the highest value to self-production. Value perceptions in massive groups converge.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to report on the seeking of deeply meaningful information, also including embodied information, connected to significant, intensely personal life changes having lifelong impacts. The concepts of "meaning-making," "transitioning," and information seeking in "deeply meaningful and profoundly personal contexts" are used in order to understand transgender individuals' information seeking in the contexts of gender identity formation. Based on the literature, emotions and information seeking connected to a significant life change were divided into four phases to study how they could be identified in the 25 qualitative interviews with transgender individuals from Finland between the ages of 15 and 72. Based on the findings of this study, in significant life changes, an individual needs reliable, sensible and identifiable information. Serendipitous encounters and embodied experiences characterize information seeking during transitional stages. Peer communities are important for minorities in order to find places where interviewees feel safe to share information and experiences. These communities can also be found online. The concept of "deeply meaningful information" highlights the effect information has on information seekers. Deeply meaningful information can serve as a trigger for life change, helping people forward during the transitions.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information behavior and practices (IBP) research has been repeatedly criticized for having little impact on information systems development (ISD). Claiming that there is a complete disconnect would be an exaggeration but it is apparent that it is not always easy to translate findings of IBP research to workable design recommendations. Based on a reading of earlier literature and a closer investigation of three illustrative example contexts, this article underlines that the value of IBP research for ISD lies in its capability to inform ISD of the variety of ways people deal with information beyond individual systems, their own wants and designers' assumptions. Moreover, it highlights that the implications of information systems go beyond their primary users. Instead of overemphasizing the contextuality of findings, a part of IBP research would benefit from an increased focus on explicating its epistemological extents and limits and identifying, which findings are transferable, what distinguishes specific contexts, what are their defining constraints and priorities, and what aspects of their uniqueness are assumptions and simple clichés.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 1770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=1770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 1770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1770)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey-and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top-tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top-tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top-tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top-tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric-informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs.

0.03277177 = product of:
  0.13108708 = sum of:
    0.13108708 = weight(_text_:having in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13108708 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Commercial search engines play a central role in shaping, defining, and promoting the information people have access to in contemporary societies. This is particularly true when it comes to emergent technologies, for which there is often limited available information in legacy media and other sources, thus having a strong bearing on public perceptions. In this article, we focus on how the Google search engine promotes information on carbon capture and storage (CCS). We explore how Google's ranking parameters and interface shape the information people access when searching for CCS through a qualitative analysis comparing the results in three countries (France, Spain, and Portugal). We focus on the content of the first search engine result pages (SERP) and consider both Google's ranking criteria and the content and format of promoted sources. The study reveals Google's influence in highlighting Wikipedia pages, Q&A-formatted sources, and prioritizing online specialized media and private corporations. Additionally, we observe country-specific variations in terms of actors and types of content, reflecting the level of interest and investment in the topic at the national level. These findings underscore the significant role of search engine mediations in shaping public perceptions and knowledge about emergent climate change technologies.

0.026217414 = product of:
  0.104869656 = sum of:
    0.104869656 = weight(_text_:having in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104869656 = score(doc=1830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.26433223 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the United States, soon after its emergence, constructivism became "mainstreamed" by having its analysis of norms reduced to "variable research." In such research, positive examples of for instance the spread of norms were included, but strangely empirical evidence of counterexamples of norm "deaths" (preventive strikes, unlawful combatants, drone strikes, extrajudicial killings) were not. The elective affinity of constructivism and humanitarianism seemed to have transformed the former into the Enlightenment project of "progress." Even Kant was finally pressed into the service of "liberalism" in the U.S. discussion, and his notion of the "practical interest of reason" morphed into the political project of an "end of history." This "slant" has prevented a serious conceptual engagement with the "history" of law and (inter-)national politics and the epistemological problems that are raised thereby. This bowdlerization of constructivism is further buttressed by the fact that in the "knowledge industry" none of the "leading" U.S. departments has a constructivist on board, ensuring thereby the narrowness of conceptual and methodological choices to which the future "professionals" are exposed. This article contextualizes constructivism and its emergence within a changing world and within the evolution of the discipline. The aim is not to provide a definition or a typology of constructivism, since such efforts go against the critical dimension of constructivism. An application of this critique on constructivism itself leads to a reflection on truth, knowledge, and the need for (re-)orientation.

0.026217414 = product of:
  0.104869656 = sum of:
    0.104869656 = weight(_text_:having in 2107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104869656 = score(doc=2107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.26433223 = fieldWeight in 2107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to delineate the process of evolution of know­ledge organization systems (KOSs) through identification of principles of unity such as internal and external unity in organizing the structure of KOSs to achieve content storage and retrieval purposes and to explain a novel method used in ranking of KOSs by proposing the principle of rank unity. Different types of KOSs which are addressed in this article include dictionaries, Roget's thesaurus, thesauri, micro, macro, and meta-thesaurus, ontologies, and lower, middle, and upper-level ontologies. This article relied on dialectic models to clarify the ideas in Kant's know­ledge theory. This is done by identifying logical relationships between categories (i.e., Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) in the creation of data, information, and know­ledge in the human mind. The Analysis has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a documentary method, as its reasoning process to propose a conceptual model for ranking KOSs. The study endeavors to explain the main elements of data, information, and know­ledge along with engineering mechanisms such as data, information, and know­ledge engineering in developing the structure of KOSs and also aims to clarify their influence on content storage and retrieval performance. KOSs have followed related principles of order to achieve an internal order, which could be examined by analyzing the principle of internal unity in know­ledge organizations. The principle of external unity leads us to the necessity of compatibility and interoperability between different types of KOSs to achieve semantic harmonization in increasing the performance of content storage and retrieval. Upon introduction of the principle of rank unity, a ranking method of KOSs utilizing cognition states as criteria could be considered to determine the position of each know­ledge organization with respect to others. The related criteria of the principle of rank unity- cognition states- are derived from Immanuel Kant's epistemology. The research results showed that KOSs, while having defined positions in cognition states, specific principles of order, related operational mechanisms, and related principles of unity in achieving their specific purposes, have benefited from the developmental experiences of previous KOSs, and further, their developmental processes owe to the experiences and methods of their previous generations.

0.022940237 = product of:
  0.09176095 = sum of:
    0.09176095 = weight(_text_:having in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176095 = score(doc=1924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39673427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.2312907 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

They might appear intelligent, but LLMs are nothing of the sort. They don't understand the meanings of the words they are using, nor the concepts expressed within the sentences they create. When asked how to bring a cow back to life, earlier versions of ChatGPT, for example, which ran on a souped-up version of GPT-3, would confidently provide a list of instructions. So-called hallucinations like this happen because language models have no concept of what a "cow" is or that "death" is a non-reversible state of being. LLMs do not have minds that can think about objects in the world and how they relate to each other. All they "know" is how likely it is that some sets of words will follow other sets of words, having calculated those probabilities from their training data. To make sense of all this, I spoke with Gary Marcus, an emeritus professor of psychology and neural science at New York University, for "Babbage", our science and technology podcast. Last year, as the world was transfixed by the sudden appearance of ChatGPT, he made some fascinating predictions about GPT-4.

0.020392861 = product of:
  0.081571445 = sum of:
    0.081571445 = weight(_text_:und in 6943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081571445 = score(doc=6943,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1471148 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.5544748 = fieldWeight in 6943, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Arbeit und Wirtschaft, Erde und Kosmos, Globalisierung und Nachhaltigkeit, Industrie, Informationstechnologie, Infrastruktur, Kognition und Wissen, Kultur, Leben und Wohlergehen, Materialien, Mensch und Gesellschaft, Natur und Umwelt, Technologie und zu guter Letzt Wissenschaft - das sind die 14 Oberkategorien der interdisziplinären Forschungsfeldklassifikation.

0.020232912 = product of:
  0.08093165 = sum of:
    0.08093165 = weight(_text_:und in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08093165 = score(doc=1376,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.1471148 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.55012584 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen erfahren in den letzten Jahren einen Wandel in ihren Aufgaben. Die zunehmende digitale Vernetzung ermöglicht es den Agierenden des Publikations- und Informationswesens, verstärkt die eigene Rolle zu verlassen und in Bereichen tätig zu werden, die bisher nicht dem eigenen Kerngebiet entsprochen haben. So können z. B. Verlage und Autor: innen in Umgehung des Einzelhandels und der Bibliotheken ihre Werke direkt an die Kund:innen verkaufen und ausliefern und Bibliotheken können über Open-Access-Repositorien selbst Werke publizieren. Ich möchte in diesem Beitrag dafür argumentieren, Tätigkeiten in Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen - speziell Erschließung und das Entwickeln von Discovery-Systemen - konsequent in Bezug auf Anwendungsfälle zu denken und zu gestalten. Nur so lässt sich effektiv und effizient sowohl bei der Erschließung als auch bei der Gestaltung der die Erschließung nutzenden Systeme und Prozesse arbeiten. Zunächst möchte ich dafür in den folgenden Abschnitten Berührungspunkte aufzeigen, um auf die vielfältigen Probleme aber auch Möglichkeiten im Zusammenspiel von (Inhalts-)Erschließung und Discovery-Systemen hinzuweisen.

Series

Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis; 70

0.020232912 = product of:
  0.08093165 = sum of:
    0.08093165 = weight(_text_:und in 1407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08093165 = score(doc=1407,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.1471148 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.55012584 = fieldWeight in 1407, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1407)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In dieser Reihe wird die Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft und ihr Umgang mit der "Informationskompetenz" kritisiert und die Verwertbarkeit ihrer Beiträge für die Aufdeckung und "Bekämpfung" von Desinformationen und Fake News infrage gestellt (Open Password - nachzutragen). Alternativ dazu wurde in Teil 2 das Forschungsdesign zu einer ersten, nationalen empirischen Untersuchung zum Thema: "Digitale Nachrichten- und Informationskompetenzen der deutschen Bevölkerung im Test" der Stiftung "Neue Verantwortung", einem Berliner Forschungs-"Think Tank für die Gesellschaft im technologischen Wandel" (März 2021), vorgestellt (https://www.stiftung-nv.de/de/publikation/quelle-internet-digitale-nachrichten- und-informationskompetenzen-der-deutschen). In Teil 3 werden die Inhalte und Testverfahren der Berliner Studie interpretiert und bewertet. In Teil 4 werden ausgewählte Ergebnisse der Studie vorgestellt, die in eine Bestandsaufnahme zum Stand der operativen "Informationskompetenz"-Forschung allgemein und in den Nachbarwissenschaften münden sollte.

Series

Zukunft der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

0.020152465 = product of:
  0.08060986 = sum of:
    0.08060986 = weight(_text_:und in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08060986 = score(doc=3466,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1471148 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0663307 = queryNorm
        0.54793847 = fieldWeight in 3466, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3466)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wie gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse unser Handeln und Denken bestimmen. Und wie wir uns des Wandels bewusst werden können. Eine philosophiegeschichtliche Anmerkung zu Kant, Hegel und Marx.

Source

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Muessen-wir-umdenken-und-wenn-ja-wie-6272388.html?view=print