Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02603418 = sum of:
  0.015819019 = product of:
    0.09491411 = sum of:
      0.09491411 = weight(_text_:authors in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09491411 = score(doc=2321,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.19232611 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04218775 = queryNorm
          0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.01021516 = product of:
    0.02043032 = sum of:
      0.02043032 = weight(_text_:r in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02043032 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13965236 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04218775 = queryNorm
          0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss and shed light on the following questions: What is an author? Is it a person who writes? Or, is it, in information, an iconic taxonomic designation (some might say a "classification") for a group of writings that are recognized by the public in some particular way? What does it mean when a search engine, or catalog, asks a user to enter the name of an author? And how does that accord with the manner in which the data have been entered in association with the names of the entities identified with the concept of authorship? Design/methodology/approach - The authors use several cases as bases of phenomenological discourse analysis, combining as best the authors can components of eidetic bracketing (a Husserlian technique for isolating noetic reduction) with Foucauldian discourse analysis. The two approaches are not sympathetic or together cogent, so the authors present them instead as alternative explanations alongside empirical evidence. In this way the authors are able to isolate components of iconic "authorship" and then subsequently engage them in discourse. Findings - An "author" is an iconic name associated with a class of works. An "author" is a role in public discourse between a set of works and the culture that consumes them. An "author" is a role in cultural sublimation, or a power broker in deabstemiation. An "author" is last, if ever, a person responsible for the intellectual content of a published work. The library catalog's attribution of "author" is at odds with the Foucauldian discursive comprehension of the role of an "author." Originality/value - One of the main assets of this paper is the combination of Foucauldian discourse analysis with phenomenological analysis for the study of the "author." The authors turned to Foucauldian discourse analysis to discover the loci of power in the interactions of the public with the named authorial entities. The authors also looked to phenomenological analysis to consider the lived experience of users who encounter the same named authorial entities. The study of the "author" in this combined way facilitated the revelation of new aspects of the role of authorship in search engines and library catalogs.

0.008573786 = product of:
  0.017147573 = sum of:
    0.017147573 = product of:
      0.034295145 = sum of:
        0.034295145 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034295145 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14773431 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04218775 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
      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

0.0056508267 = product of:
  0.011301653 = sum of:
    0.011301653 = product of:
      0.06780992 = sum of:
        0.06780992 = weight(_text_:authors in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06780992 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19232611 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04218775 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the conceptions and treatment of genre in four sets of modern Anglo-American cataloging rules spanning 171 years. Genre-related rules are first identified through "genre(s)," "form(s)," and "type(s)" keyword searches, and manual examination of the contents, then analyzed by level of treatment genre receives and by user tasks, as defined in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. While genre is found to be sporadically addressed across the rules, its significance has increased over time. In conclusion, the authors call for a rigorous and functional definition of genre and an integrated approach to genre in cataloging.

0.0048435656 = product of:
  0.009687131 = sum of:
    0.009687131 = product of:
      0.058122784 = sum of:
        0.058122784 = weight(_text_:authors in 4295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058122784 = score(doc=4295,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19232611 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04218775 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4295, 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=4295)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study investigates the main structure of the classification applied in the Seven Epitomes (Qilue), the first documented Chinese library catalog completed a few years before the Common Era. Based on a close examination of the partially extant text and structure of the catalog, other historical records and secondary sources, the authors identify two principal classification methods in the scheme being studied: dichotomy and ranking. It is theorized that the compiler of the catalog, Liu Xin, used ru classicism, or Confucianism, as the principle for guiding the construction of three sets of ranked dichotomies that manifested into the six main classes in the set sequence. As a result, he successfully achieved the chief goal he intended for the catalog-to proclaim classicism as the intellectual authority. This design made the catalog, and its numerous successors in imperial China for two thousand years, an effective aid for intellectual, political, and social control.