Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 1413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=1413,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 1413, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1413)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 1413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=1413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1413, 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=1413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper uses facet analysis to address the classification of responsive behaviours exhibited by persons in long-term care facilities suffering from advanced dementia. An analysis of the Canadian PIECES Framework shows that facet analysis is implicitly embedded in the reasoning procedure prescribed; furthermore the facet structure is used as a surrogate for the patient's cognition, providing access to the person's medical, social, emotional and personal history. In this way, facet analysis may serve as a means of enabling family members and caregivers outside the gerontology field to deal with responsive behaviours in difficult care situations. However, the paper suggests facet analysis is useful, not because it "improves" the work of gerontologists and behaviour specialists, but rather because it captures and illustrate their knowledge in a way that does justice to the complexity and frequent inconsistency of real-life caregiving situations.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.020346032 = product of:
  0.08138413 = sum of:
    0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08138413 = score(doc=4064,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.

Theme

Social tagging

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3356,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3356, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3356)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper uses Paul Ricoeur's distinction between language and discourse to help define a North American research agenda in knowledge organization. Ricoeur's concept of discourse as a set of utterances, defined within multiple disciplines and domains, and reducible, not to the word but to the sentence, provides three useful tools for defining our research. First, it enables us to recognize the important contribution of numerous studies that focus on acts of organization, rather than on standards or tools of organization. Second, it provides a paradigm for reconciling the competing demands of interoperability, base on widely-used tools and techniques of library science, and domain integrity, based on user warrant and an understanding of local context. Finally, it resonates with the current economic, political and social climate in which our information systems work, particularly the competing calls for protectionism and globalization.