Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.1461986 = product of:
  0.21929789 = sum of:
    0.12575619 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12575619 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33191046 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05807226 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
    0.0935417 = product of:
      0.1870834 = sum of:
        0.1870834 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1870834 = score(doc=4644,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.84160745 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article discusses definitions of index and indexing and provides a systematic overview of kinds of indexes. Theories of indexing are reviewed, and the theoretical basis of both manual indexing and automatic indexing is discussed, and a classification of theories is suggested (rationalist, cognitivist, empiricist, and historicist and pragmatist theories). It is claimed that although many researchers do not consider indexing to be a theoretical issue (or consider it to be a field without theories) indexing is indeed highly theory-laden (and the idea of atheoretical indexing is an oxymoron). An important issue is also the subjectivity of the indexer, in particular, her socio-cultural and paradigmatic background, as for example, when authors of documents are the best indexers of their own documents. The article contains a section about the tools available for indexing in the form of the indexing languages and their nature. It is concluded that the social epistemology first proposed by Jesse Shera in 1951 provides the most fruitful theoretical framework for indexing.

0.053341158 = product of:
  0.16002347 = sum of:
    0.16002347 = sum of:
      0.11281553 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11281553 = score(doc=4359,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05807226 = queryNorm
          0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
      0.047207937 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047207937 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20335917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05807226 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.02878214 = product of:
  0.08634642 = sum of:
    0.08634642 = sum of:
      0.047006465 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047006465 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05807226 = queryNorm
          0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.039339952 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039339952 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20335917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05807226 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.010069768 = product of:
  0.030209303 = sum of:
    0.030209303 = product of:
      0.09062791 = sum of:
        0.09062791 = weight(_text_:objects in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09062791 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3086582 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.009179322 = product of:
  0.027537964 = sum of:
    0.027537964 = product of:
      0.05507593 = sum of:
        0.05507593 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05507593 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20335917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.22-36

0.006556659 = product of:
  0.019669976 = sum of:
    0.019669976 = product of:
      0.039339952 = sum of:
        0.039339952 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039339952 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20335917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13