Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022178805 = product of:
  0.04435761 = sum of:
    0.04435761 = product of:
      0.08871522 = sum of:
        0.08871522 = weight(_text_:r in 8884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08871522 = score(doc=8884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 8884, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the 5th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, Oct. 16, 1994, Alexandria, VA. Ed.: R. Fidel u.a

0.012673602 = product of:
  0.025347205 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = product of:
      0.05069441 = sum of:
        0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05069441 = score(doc=3323,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Erwiderung zu: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1076-1077.

0.012410074 = product of:
  0.024820147 = sum of:
    0.024820147 = product of:
      0.049640294 = sum of:
        0.049640294 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049640294 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.012410074 = product of:
  0.024820147 = sum of:
    0.024820147 = product of:
      0.049640294 = sum of:
        0.049640294 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049640294 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-36

0.011089402 = product of:
  0.022178805 = sum of:
    0.022178805 = product of:
      0.04435761 = sum of:
        0.04435761 = weight(_text_:r in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04435761 = score(doc=1853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010637206 = product of:
  0.021274412 = sum of:
    0.021274412 = product of:
      0.042548824 = sum of:
        0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042548824 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.009013871 = product of:
  0.018027741 = sum of:
    0.018027741 = product of:
      0.072110966 = sum of:
        0.072110966 = weight(_text_:authors in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072110966 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.

0.009013871 = product of:
  0.018027741 = sum of:
    0.018027741 = product of:
      0.072110966 = sum of:
        0.072110966 = weight(_text_:authors in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072110966 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0088643385 = product of:
  0.017728677 = sum of:
    0.017728677 = product of:
      0.035457354 = sum of:
        0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035457354 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0088643385 = product of:
  0.017728677 = sum of:
    0.017728677 = product of:
      0.035457354 = sum of:
        0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035457354 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0088643385 = product of:
  0.017728677 = sum of:
    0.017728677 = product of:
      0.035457354 = sum of:
        0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035457354 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.007921002 = product of:
  0.015842004 = sum of:
    0.015842004 = product of:
      0.031684007 = sum of:
        0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031684007 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.

0.007921002 = product of:
  0.015842004 = sum of:
    0.015842004 = product of:
      0.031684007 = sum of:
        0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031684007 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)

0.007921002 = product of:
  0.015842004 = sum of:
    0.015842004 = product of:
      0.031684007 = sum of:
        0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031684007 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.

0.007511559 = product of:
  0.015023118 = sum of:
    0.015023118 = product of:
      0.06009247 = sum of:
        0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06009247 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 1975 Tefko Saracevic declared the subject knowledge view to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance. This paper examines the assumptions in different views of relevance, including the system's view and the user's view and offers a reinterpretation of these views. The paper finds that what was regarded as the most fundamental view by Saracevic in 1975 has not since been considered (with very few exceptions). Other views, which are based on less fruitful assumptions, have dominated the discourse on relevance in information retrieval and information science. Many authors have reexamined the concept of relevance in information science, but have neglected the subject knowledge view, hence basic theoretical assumptions seem not to have been properly addressed. It is as urgent now as it was in 1975 seriously to consider the subject knowledge view of relevance (which may also be termed the epistemological view). The concept of relevance, like other basic concepts, is influenced by overall approaches to information science, such as the cognitive view and the domain-analytic view. There is today a trend toward a social paradigm for information science. This paper offers an understanding of relevance from such a social point of view.

0.007511559 = product of:
  0.015023118 = sum of:
    0.015023118 = product of:
      0.06009247 = sum of:
        0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06009247 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.

0.004752601 = product of:
  0.009505202 = sum of:
    0.009505202 = product of:
      0.019010404 = sum of:
        0.019010404 = weight(_text_:r in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019010404 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.1097206 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0044321693 = product of:
  0.0088643385 = sum of:
    0.0088643385 = product of:
      0.017728677 = sum of:
        0.017728677 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017728677 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.0037557795 = product of:
  0.007511559 = sum of:
    0.007511559 = product of:
      0.030046236 = sum of:
        0.030046236 = weight(_text_:authors in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030046236 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.12592064 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.