-
Nicolaisen, J.; Hjoerland, B.: Practical potentials of Bradford's law : a critical examination of the received view (2007)
0.02
0.021349952 = product of:
0.042699903 = sum of:
0.042699903 = product of:
0.08539981 = sum of:
0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08539981 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradford's law in relation to core-journal identification. Design/methodology/approach - Literature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses). Findings - Literature studies reveal that the concept of "subject" has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradford's law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of "subject" produce quite different lists of core-journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views. Practical implications - Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradford's law needs to be revised. Originality/value - The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.
-
Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Bradford's law of scattering : ambiguities in the concept of "subject" (2005)
0.02
0.017791625 = product of:
0.03558325 = sum of:
0.03558325 = product of:
0.0711665 = sum of:
0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0711665 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The methodology of constructing classification schemes : a discussion of the state-of-the-art (2003)
0.01
0.014233301 = product of:
0.028466603 = sum of:
0.028466603 = product of:
0.056933206 = sum of:
0.056933206 = weight(_text_:journals in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056933206 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.22190176 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.
-
Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002)
0.01
0.012115525 = product of:
0.02423105 = sum of:
0.02423105 = product of:
0.0484621 = sum of:
0.0484621 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0484621 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 21. 7.2006 14:11:22
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009)
0.00
0.0043269736 = product of:
0.008653947 = sum of:
0.008653947 = product of:
0.017307894 = sum of:
0.017307894 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017307894 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 18:13:27
