Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0033183135 = product of:
  0.0099549405 = sum of:
    0.0099549405 = weight(_text_:a in 4413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0099549405 = score(doc=4413,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 4413, 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=4413)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To analyse the use of hermeneutics in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach - Presents a literature-based conceptual analysis of: the definition of hermeneutics in LIS; and the practical use of hermeneutics within recent LIS studies. Findings - The use of hermeneutics in LIS has increased during the last decade, as has the number of authors discussing its scientific value for LIS. In many studies the interpretative character of the objects of study seen as hermeneutic in itself. This is a misconception which draws the attention away from hermeneutics as a scientific point of departure and methodology used in the study of these processes. The problem is specifically present in studies making explicit or implicit reference to a modern view of science, while studies referring to LIS as a postmodern field of study seem to be more at ease with hermeneutics. Practical implications - Questions are raised on the fundamental use of hermeneutics in LIS. This may give rise to a deeper discussion on the scientific value and character of hermeneutics in LIS. Originality/value - The paper questions the use of hermeneutics as a point of departure in LIS research by looking at the research made within the field. This perspective may increase understanding of the function of hermeneutics within LIS, something which is of value both for the research community and for students within LIS.

Type

a

0.00325127 = product of:
  0.009753809 = sum of:
    0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009753809 = score(doc=4702,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the events which led the Swedish Library Association (SAB) in 1921 to publish a unique Swedish classification system, the SAB system. Its origin is set in the social context of public library development since 1800 and seen in the light of Bostrom's philosophy of rational idealism. This had consequences for stock and classification practice in parish, workers' and study circle libraries. From 1915, SAB began debating classification at annual meetings and in the committee set up in 1917. Library consultants played a major role in the system's development; ahich was created for librarians, not users. The main reason for creating a unique system seems to have been a desire to find a common tool for stock acquisition and organisation which was based on Swedish practice and would function in the Swedish setting. This might explain why Dewey, based on American public library ideas, was rejected. But the picture is complex and can be differently interpretated

Type

a

0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=2300,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Subject terms play a crucial role in resource discovery but require substantial effort to produce. Automatic subject classification and indexing address problems of scale and sustainability and can be used to enrich existing bibliographic records, establish more connections across and between resources and enhance consistency of bibliographic data. The paper aims to put forward a complex methodological framework to evaluate automatic classification tools of Swedish textual documents based on the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) recently introduced to Swedish libraries. Three major complementary approaches are suggested: a quality-built gold standard, retrieval effects, domain analysis. The gold standard is built based on input from at least two catalogue librarians, end-users expert in the subject, end users inexperienced in the subject and automated tools. Retrieval effects are studied through a combination of assigned and free tasks, including factual and comprehensive types. The study also takes into consideration the different role and character of subject terms in various knowledge domains, such as scientific disciplines. As a theoretical framework, domain analysis is used and applied in relation to the implementation of DDC in Swedish libraries and chosen domains of knowledge within the DDC itself.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

Type

a

0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=5982,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5982, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5982)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As the humanities develop in the realm of increasingly more pronounced digital scholarship, it is important to provide quality subject access to a vast range of heterogeneous information objects in digital services. The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of affairs of the use of subject index terms in humanities journal articles with particular reference to the well-established subject access needs of humanities researchers, with the purpose of identifying which improvements are needed in this context. Design/methodology/approach The comparison of subject metadata on a sample of 649 peer-reviewed journal articles from across the humanities is conducted in a university repository, against Scopus, the former reflecting local and national policies and the latter being the most comprehensive international abstract and citation database of research output. Findings The study shows that established bibliographic objectives to ensure subject access for humanities journal articles are not supported in either the world's largest commercial abstract and citation database Scopus or the local repository of a public university in Sweden. The indexing policies in the two services do not seem to address the needs of humanities scholars for highly granular subject index terms with appropriate facets; no controlled vocabularies for any humanities discipline are used whatsoever. Originality/value In all, not much has changed since 1990s when indexing for the humanities was shown to lag behind the sciences. The community of researchers and information professionals, today working together on digital humanities projects, as well as interdisciplinary research teams, should demand that their subject access needs be fulfilled, especially in commercial services like Scopus and discovery services.

Type

a

0.00296799 = product of:
  0.00890397 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=2500,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2500, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2500)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

The paper highlights and discusses concepts and practices of national library digitization. Two conceptual models are suggested in order to help strengthen scholarly analyses of digitization practices within libraries: the distinction between quantitative and qualitative digitization, on the one hand, and the prism metaphor for understanding the nature of qualitative digitization, on the other. Qualitative digitization, understood as a document representational practice, is defined as a knowledge organization practice. These concepts and models are then put in relation to the issue of national libraries and institutional identity. By combining research within the fields of KO, digitization and institutional identity, the paper points to a way of addressing empirical issues in all three fields of research. Special focus is on the very definition of qualitative digitization as a KO practice and the practice of selecting and digitizing documents suitable for the development of institutional identity within libraries.

Type

a

0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=312,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The article identifies 2 distinct sections, one within the public library sphere and one in academic libraries, relevant for the development of a unique Swedish classification system (the SAB-system) to be used in public libraries. These are used to analyse the social and discursive influences that led to a rejection of the DDC as the common classification system for the public libraries in Sweden. The author analyses the debate that took place in the 1910s in various publications and idetifies theoretical as well as some practical reasons for rejecting the DDC. Reference is also made to the situation in Norway and Denmark at this time and their attempts to influence Sweden to accept the DDC as had been done in these countries. Conclusions are drawn that the reasons for rejection of the DDC not only is to be sought in theoretical or even practical problems regarding the system itself but in the academic library sector which, through the SAB-system, could create a lasting influence on the knowledge organisation in public libraries in order to uphold the national identity of thre Swedish library system

Type

a

0.0013273255 = product of:
  0.0039819763 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a