Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019621588 = product of:
  0.039243177 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=4138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4138)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 4138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=4138,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 4138, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Shelf arrangement, from a bibliographic perspective, constitutes a reading proposal of the collection to the users as well as a resource for management and access to the documents. However, the centrality of the call number testifies the near forgetfulness of the different proposals that came before it and the role of the collection of documents and the target audience in the elaboration of the organization, in addition to the overlapping of the bibliographic classification to shelf arrangement. This work is justified by the need to restore shelf arrangement, seeking to understand its fundamental aspects from the literature in which the activity was systematized. Thus, this paper aims at contributing to reorient the shelf arrangement as an activity of information organization, exploring its conformation in the Francophone literature, from the midnineteenth century up to the 1930s. As for the methodology, this is an exploratory research made possible through the historical-conceptual investigation of shelf arrangement found in the Francophone manuals of librarianship of that period. This study concludes that the activity was placed by that line since the nineteenth century, when its own terminology was developed under the consideration of the intervention of the contexts, using methods and guided by the diversity of proposals.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.8, S.605-614

0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=1973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the recent years, several libraries in the United States have been experimenting with Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), the classification system of the book industry, as an alternative to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Although rarely discussed, these cases of implementation of BISAC arguably resemble other past cases of replacement of traditional classifications that received the name of reader-interest classifications. In this article, a comparison of the BISAC cases to the previous cases of reader-interest classifications is taken in order to determine if the current application of BISAC to libraries is susceptible to the same problems, dangers, and ends as occurred in the past.

0.007510218 = product of:
  0.030040871 = sum of:
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=3626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and common characteristics in the knowledge organization literature for more than half a century. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. The use of reader-interest classification related terms and references drastically declined since 1995, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day such as those of implementation of BISAC in American public libraries. The present paper attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.3, S.234-246

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.2, S.102-114

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.3, S.160-168

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=1198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1198)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.290-301