Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bullard, J."
  1. Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020) 0.02 
    0.024089992 = product of:
  0.048179984 = sum of:
    0.048179984 = sum of:
      0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010739701 = score(doc=5996,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper contains a report of two interdependent knowledge organization (KO) projects for an LGBT2QIA+ library. The authors, in the context of volunteer library work for an independent library, redesigned the classification system and subject cataloguing guidelines to centre LGBT2QIA+ subjects. We discuss the priorities of creating and maintaining knowledge organization systems for a historically marginalized community and address the challenge that queer subjectivity poses to the goals of KO. The classification system features a focus on identity and physically reorganizes the library space in a way that accounts for the multiple and overlapping labels that constitute the currently articulated boundaries of this community. The subject heading system focuses on making visible topics and elements of identity made invisible by universal systems and by the newly implemented classification system. We discuss how this project may inform KO for other marginalized subjects, particularly through process and documentation that prioritizes transparency and the acceptance of an unfinished endpoint for queer KO.
    Date
    6.10.2020 21:22:33
    Type
    a
  2. Oudenaar, H.; Bullard, J.: NOT A BOOK : goodreads and the risks of social cataloging with insufficient direction (2024) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1156,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Social cataloging websites, such as Goodreads, LibraryThing, and StoryGraph are widely popular with individuals who want to track their reading and read reviews. Goodreads is one of the most popular sites with 90 million registered users as of 2019. This paper studies a Goodreads cataloging rule, NOT A BOOK (NAB), through which users designate items as invalid to the site's scope while preserving some of their metadata. By reviewing NAB, we identify thirteen types of invalid items. We go on to discuss how these item types unevenly reflect the rule itself and the emergence of a "non-book" sense through social cataloging.
    Type
    a
  3. Bullard, J.; Howison, J.: Learning from Elitist Jerks : creating high-quality knowledge resources from ongoing conversations (2015) 0.00 
    0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=2268,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2268, 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=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Online-community management is commonly presented as the facilitation of conversation and contributions, especially converting readers to contributors. However, the goal of many discussion communities is to produce a high-quality knowledge resource, whether to improve external task performance or to increase reputation and site traffic. What do moderation practices look like when the community is focused on the creation of a useable knowledge resource rather than facilitating an inclusive conversation? Under what conditions is this style of moderation likely to be successful? We present a case study from online gaming-Elitist Jerks-in which aggressive moderation is used to transform a conversational medium into a high-quality knowledge resource, using the strategy of open censorship. We present a content analysis of moderator comments regarding censored messages. Our analysis revealed differences in types of contributor mistakes and the severity of moderator actions: infractions that interfered with both conversation and resource quality were punished harshly, whereas a set of infractions that supported conversation but undermined resource quality were more respectfully removed. We describe a set of conditions under which moderators should intervene in the conversion of conversation to knowledge resource rather than the conversion of lurkers to contributors.
    Type
    a
  4. Bullard, J.: Curated Folksonomies : three implementations of structure through human judgment (2018) 0.00 
    0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=5002,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Traditional knowledge organization approaches struggle to make large user-generated collections navigable, especially when these collections are quickly growing, in which currency is of particular concern, for which professional classification design is too costly. Many of these collections use folksonomies for labelling and organization as a low-cost but flawed knowledge organization approach. While several computational approaches offer ways to ameliorate the worst flaws of folksonomies, some user-generated collections have implemented a human judgment-centered alternative to produce structured folksonomies. An analysis of three such implementations reveals design differences within the space. This approach, termed "curated folksonomy," presents a new object of study for knowledge organization and represents one answer to the tension between scalability and the value of human judgment.
    Type
    a
  5. Bullard, J.; Burns, C.S.; VanScoy, A.: Warrant as a means to study classification system design (2017) 0.00 
    0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=3360,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of warrant in daily classification design in general and in negotiating disparate classification goals in particular. Design/methodology/approach This paper synthesizes classification research on forms of warrant and uses examples of classification decisions from ethnographic engagement with designers to illustrate how forms of warrant interact in daily classification decisions. Findings Different forms of warrant, though associated with incompatible theories of classification design, coexist in daily classification decisions. A secondary warrant might be employed to augment the primary warrant of a system, such as to decide among equally valid terms, or to overturn a decision based on the primary warrant, such as when ethical impacts are prioritized above user preference. Research limitations/implications This paper calls for empirical research using the application of warrant as an object of analysis. Originality/value The paper connects a ubiquitous and observable element of classification design - the application of warrant - to longstanding divisions in classification theory. This paper demonstrates how the analysis of daily classification design can illuminate the interaction between disparate philosophies of classification.
    Type
    a
  6. Lee, T.; Dupont, S.; Bullard, J.: Comparing the cataloguing of indigenous scholarships : first steps and finding (2021) 0.00 
    0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=582,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper provides an analysis of data collected on the continued prevalence of outdated, marginalizing terms in contemporary cataloguing practices, stemming from the Library of Congress Subject Heading term "Indians" and all its related terms. Using Manitoba Archival Information Network's (MAIN) list of current LCSH and recommended alternatives as a foundation, we built a dataset from titles published in the last five years. We show a wide distribution of LCSH used to catalogue fiction and non-fiction, with outdated but recognized terms like "Indians of North America-History" appearing the most frequently and ambiguous and offensive terms like "Indian gays" appearing throughout the dataset. We discuss two primary problems with the continued use of current LCSH terms: their ambiguity limits the effectiveness of an institution's catalog, and they do not reflect the way Indigenous Peoples, Nations, and communities in North America prefer to represent themselves as individuals and collectives. These findings support those of parallel scholarship on knowl­edge organization practices for works on Indigenous topics and provide a foundation for further work.
    Content
    Beitrag innerhalb von: Best papers from the 2021 NASKO Conference: Resilience, Resistance and Reflection: Knowledge Organization at a Crossroads. Vgl.: doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2021-4-298.
    Type
    a
  7. Bullard, J.; Watson, B.; Purdome, C.: Misrepresentation in the surrogate : author critiques of "Indians of North America" subject headings (2022) 0.00 
    0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1143,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1143, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The surrogate record for a book in the library catalog contains subject headings applied on the basis of literary warrant. To assess the extent to which terms like "Indians of North America" are accurate to the content of the items with that label, we invited the items' creators to critique their surrogate records. In interviews with 38 creators we found consensus against the term "Indians of North America" and identified a periphery of related terms that misrepresent the content of the work, are out of alignment with their scholarly communities, and reproduce settler colonial biases in our library systems.
    Type
    a
  8. Howison, J.; Bullard, J.: Software in the scientific literature : problems with seeing, finding, and using software mentioned in the biology literature (2016) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3086,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3086, 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=3086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Recognizing negative and speculative information is highly relevant for sentiment analysis. This paper presents a machine-learning approach to automatically detect this kind of information in the review domain. The resulting system works in two steps: in the first pass, negation/speculation cues are identified, and in the second phase the full scope of these cues is determined. The system is trained and evaluated on the Simon Fraser University Review corpus, which is extensively used in opinion mining. The results show how the proposed method outstrips the baseline by as much as roughly 20% in the negation cue detection and around 13% in the scope recognition, both in terms of F1. In speculation, the performance obtained in the cue prediction phase is close to that obtained by a human rater carrying out the same task. In the scope detection, the results are also promising and represent a substantial improvement on the baseline (up by roughly 10%). A detailed error analysis is also provided. The extrinsic evaluation shows that the correct identification of cues and scopes is vital for the task of sentiment analysis.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes