Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Barité, M."
  1. Barité, M.; Rauch, M.: Systematifier : in rescue of a useful tool in domain analysis (2017) 0.03 
    0.03324954 = product of:
  0.049874306 = sum of:
    0.0099549405 = weight(_text_:a in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0099549405 = score(doc=4142,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 4142, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4142)
    0.039919365 = product of:
      0.07983873 = sum of:
        0.07983873 = weight(_text_:de in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07983873 = score(doc=4142,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.4111975 = fieldWeight in 4142, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Literature on the systematifier is remarkably limited in knowledge organization. Dahlberg created the procedure in the seventies as a guide for the construction of classification systems and showed its applicability in systems she developed. According to her initial conception, all disciplines should be structured in the following sequence: Foundations and theories-Subjects of study-Methods-Influences-Applications-Environment. The nature of the procedure is determined in this study and the concept is situated in relation with the domain analysis methodologies. As a tool for the organization of the map of a certain domain, it is associated with a rationalist perspective and the top-down design of systems construction. It would require a reassessment of its scope in order to ensure its applicability to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary domains. Among other conclusions, it is highlighted that the greatest potential of the systematifier is given by the fact that-as a methodological device-it can act as: i)an analyzer of a subject area; ii)an organizer of its main terms; and, iii)an identifier of links, bridges and intersection points with other knowledge areas.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-Brazil: IV Congresso Brasileiro em Organização e Representação do Conhecimento, 19-21 de setembro de 2017, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brasil.
    Type
    a
  2. Barité, M.; Parentelli, V.; Rodríguez Casaballe, N.; Suárez, M.V.: Interdisciplinarity and postgraduate teaching of knowledge organization (KO) : elements for a necessary dialogue (2023) 0.01 
    0.014626579 = product of:
  0.021939868 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=1125,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.
    Type
    a
  3. Barité, M.: Towards a general conception of warrants : first notes (2019) 0.00 
    0.002473325 = product of:
  0.0074199745 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 5646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=5646,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5646, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5646)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The areas of knowledge are organized around the identification of their terms of reference and the relationships established between them. This is the rational basis of -among others- the methodology for the development of knowledge organization systems. The authority from which to select, evaluate or revise the terminology of these systems is established in relation to any of the twenty-one warrants (literary, cultural, etc.) that have been proposed and studied unequally and autonomously in the literature of the area. This paper intends to introduce initial notes and comments to advance towards an overall conception of the warrant notion. For this purpose, the expression "warrant" is studied as a word of the general language as well as a term of specialized languages. Then, the scope of application of the warrants is established. Next, each warrant is placed in one of the approaches proposed by Hjørland to categorize theories and methods (empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism). From the above, some lines of research problems are identified. A typological table that includes data on all the warrants established until now is proposed, and the first conclusions are drawn.
    Type
    a
  4. Barité, M.: Literary warrant (2018) 0.00 
    0.0022989952 = product of:
  0.006896985 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=4533,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews the coining and evolution process of the literary warrant concept from its introduction by Hulme in 1911 until today, its use, applications and adjustment to a digital information environment. Different theoretical and methodological perspectives of literary warrant found in the literature of library and information science are reported and discussed. The usage by three significant knowledge organization systems are studied. The relationships and points of discussion with the general notion of warrant and with derived warrants (user, cultural, academic and organizational warrant) are established. Among other conclusions, it is set that over a century after its first enunciation it is possible to predict that the principle will be increasingly used in digital environments and other information contexts, even outside the library and information science field, with similar objectives and intentions. Its scope of application increases insofar as it can support the development of new concept structures such as taxonomies, ontologies or concepts and topic maps and it can warrant the terms to be included in specialized dictionaries or glossaries.
    Type
    a
  5. Barité, M.; Rauch, M.; Brozia, A.I.; Morales, M.: Literary warrant-based approach to organize KO terminology : criteria and method (2018) 0.00 
    0.0017697671 = product of:
  0.0053093014 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 4758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=4758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4758)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes