Search (27 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0021201707 = product of:
  0.019081537 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=4702,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The social and cultural influences on classification are evident in both the content and structure of classifications. In content, warrant, the basis on which content is determined, is most significant. Warrant is related to the purpose of the classification and has varied historically from the classical Greeks to the present. Warrant, whether it be what is written or published on a topic, what is taught, natural phenomena, or other factors is susceptible to all of the biases of the society that produces a classification. Biases of race, gender, orientation, geography, culture, language, and other factors are well-documented in relation to bibliographic classification. Bias occurs not only as a result of the warrant that determines content, but also as a result of classificatory structure. Classificatory structure may be culturally specific and the hierarchy typical of western classificatory structure can convey social influence through hierarchical force, ghettoization, and diasporization. Jesse Shera suggests the social importance of librarians and their role in classification. Combining Shera's theoretical stance with the historical/philosophical record and the empirical evidence of numerous studies in bibliographic classification, the link between society and classification is robust and of significance to the field of library and information science.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=3991,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Although researchers have theorized the critical importance of classification in the organization of information, the classification approach seems to have given way to the alphabetical subject approach in retrieval tools widely used in libraries, and research an how users utilize classification or classification-like arrangements in information seeking has been scant. To better understand whether searchers consider classificatory structures a viable alternative to information retrieval, this article reports an a study of how 24 library and information science students used Yahoo! directories, a popular search service resembling classification, in completing an assigned simple task. Several issues emerged from the students' reporting of their search process and a comparison between hierarchical navigation and keyword searching: citation order of facets, precision vs. recall, and other factors influencing searchers' successes and preferences. The latter included search expertise, knowledge of the discipline, and time required to complete the search. Without a definitive conclusion, we suggest a number of directoons for further research.

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 5428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=5428,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5428, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5428)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Critiques of subject access standards in LIS literature have addressed biases of gender, sexuality, race, age, ability, ethnicity, language and religion as limits to the representation of diversity and to effective library service for diverse populations. The current study identifies and analyzes this literature as a basis for ameliorating systemic bias and to gather the existing literature for wider accessibility. The study analyzes five quantitative variables: standards discussed, categories of problems, marginalized groups and topics discussed, date, and basis of conclusions (research or experience). Textual analysis reveals that basic tenets of subject access-user-focused cataloguing, objectivity, and standardization-are problematized in the literature and may be the best starting point for future research. In practice, librarians can work to counteract systemic problems in the careful and equitable application of standards and their adaptation to local contexts.

0.0018669361 = product of:
  0.016802425 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=5516,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper addresses the process of adapting to a particular culture or context a classification that has grown out of western culture to become a global standard. The authors use a project that adapts DDC for use in a feminist/women's issues context to demonstrate an approach that works. The project is particularly useful as an interdisciplinary example. Discussion consists of four parts: (1) definition of the problem indicating the need for adaptation and efforts to date; (2) description of the methodology developed for creating an expansion; (3) description of the interface developed for actually doing the work, with its potential for a distributed group to work on it together (could even be internationally distributed); and (4) generalization of how the methodology could be used for particular contexts by country, ethnicity, perspective or other defining factors.

0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 6212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=6212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6212)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Signs: Journal of women in culture and society. 26(2001) no.3, S.639-668

0.001425896 = product of:
  0.0128330635 = sum of:
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=70,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper addresses problems of representing marginalized knowledge domains in general and feminist or women's studies in particular in the Dewey Decimal Classification. The authors develop and apply a theoretical framework that makes the classification's limits permeable. A variety of approaches are proposed to create paradoxical spaces, places that accommodate the margins and the mainstream simultaneously. The resulting changes, expansions and options proposed for DDC are accessible through a user interface designed for the purpose

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

0.0011760591 = product of:
  0.010584532 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 1301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=1301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 1301, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1301)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)