Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018529613 = product of:
  0.037059225 = sum of:
    0.037059225 = sum of:
      0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005858987 = score(doc=3483,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Footnote

Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.

Pages

S.19-22

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=1483,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=1138,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3021,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3021, 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=3021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

Footnote

Vgl. Stellungnahme dazu in: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3536,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61. - Vgl. die Erwiderung von Nicolaisen und Hjoerland in KO 31(2004) no.3, S.199-201.

Type

a