Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Pedersen, K.N."
  1. Hjoerland, B.; Pedersen, K.N.: ¬A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    0.0029294936 = product of:
  0.005858987 = sum of:
    0.005858987 = product of:
      0.011717974 = sum of:
        0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011717974 = score(doc=1892,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.
    Type
    a
  2. Pedersen, K.N.: Libraries without collections! : Librarianship without an identity? (2005) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3002,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper, meant to evoke discussion and reflection on the identity of librarianship, takes, as its starting point, the relation between libraries and librarianship. Establishing that no clear picture exists of what are libraries leads to a discussion of the deteriorating status - following partly from the advent of e-books and e-journals - of collections, which have traditionally been considered the primary library constituents. Rendering collections inappropriate library constituents, moves focus to the question why are libraries in an attempt to establish firmer grounds for an identity of librarianship. Due to an inability to provide a satisfactory answer the question why are libraries, it is suggested that examining what librarians do may provide first insights in support of establishing an identity of librarianship. Deciding what librarians do and what librarians ought to do is shown to be as difficult as deciding why are libraries and therefore it is suggested that establishing an identity of librarianship has to follow some general recommendations, while being based on an inquiry into some specific ideas concerning the properties of librarians' tools. It is concluded that firmer grounds for an identity of librarianship may thus be established - with difficulties. Consequently, it is inferred that the upcoming of e-books and e-journals does nothing but bring to attention existing problems in librarians' self-perceptions and in the identity of librarianship.
    Type
    a