Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.06
    0.06484437 = product of:
      0.12968874 = sum of:
        0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0864512 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
        0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04323754 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    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
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Concepts, paradigms and knowledge organization (2010) 0.03
    0.02593536 = product of:
      0.10374144 = sum of:
        0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10374144 = score(doc=3512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    It is argued that concepts are the building blocks of knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Objections to this view are considered and answers are provided. By implication the theory of concepts constitutes the foundation for knowledge organization (KO). The theory of concepts is understood as related to and derived from theories of knowledge. Different theories of knowledge such as empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism imply different theories of concepts. Such different epistemologies and their associated theories of concepts represent different methodological ideals which probably compete in all knowledge domains. Different approaches to KO are also in fundamental ways associated with different theories of concepts. The paper holds that the historicist and pragmatic theory of concept should be considered most valuable. By implication is it is necessary to know about competing theories in the fields being organized. A further implication of the pragmatic view is that the construction of a KOS must be understood as a way of participating in the discourses in the domain that is being represented.
  3. Hjoerland, B.; Scerri, E.; Dupré, J.: Forum: The Philosophy of Classification : The Periodic Table and the Philosophy of Classification - What is the Nature of the Periodic Table as a Classification System? - A Note on the Debate Between Hjørland and Scerri on the Significance of the Periodic Table (2011) 0.03
    0.02593536 = product of:
      0.10374144 = sum of:
        0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10374144 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Thanks to Professor Eric Scerri for engaging in debate in this journal (Scerri 2011) by replying to my review (Hjørland 2008a) of his book (Scerri 2007). One of my points has been that we in our community (Knowledge Organization, KO / Library and Information Science, LIS) have been too isolated from broader academic fields related to classification and the organization of knowledge. The present debate is a step towards reversing this situation. Bezug zu: Scerri, E.R.: The periodic table: its story and its significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007. xxii, 346 S. und die Rezension dazu in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland).
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS) (2015) 0.03
    0.02593536 = product of:
      0.10374144 = sum of:
        0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10374144 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The notion "theory" is a neglected concept in the field of information science and knowledge organization (KO) as well as generally in philosophy and in many other fields, although there are exceptions from this general neglect (e.g., the so-called "theory theory" in cognitive psychology). This article introduces different conceptions of "theory" and argues that a theory is a statement or a conception, which is considered open to be questioned and which is connected with background assumptions. Theories form interconnected systems of grand, middle rank and micro theories and actions, practices and artifacts are theory-laden. The concept of knowledge organization system (KOS) is briefly introduced and discussed. A theory is a form of KOS and theories are the point of departure of any KOS. It is generally understood in KO that concepts are the units of KOSs, but the theory-dependence of concepts brings theories to the forefront in analyzing concepts and KOSs. The study of theories should therefore be given a high priority within KO concerning the construction and evaluation of KOSs.
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organization : a case for boolean retrieval and human decision-making during searches (2015) 0.02
    0.0216128 = product of:
      0.0864512 = sum of:
        0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0864512 = score(doc=2124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.02
    0.015133139 = product of:
      0.060532555 = sum of:
        0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060532555 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Pages
    S.22-36
  7. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01
    0.0129712615 = product of:
      0.051885046 = sum of:
        0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051885046 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
  8. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.01
    0.010809385 = product of:
      0.04323754 = sum of:
        0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04323754 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06382575 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13