Search (254 results, page 13 of 13)

0.0041178903 = product of:
  0.01235367 = sum of:
    0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 4396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01235367 = score(doc=4396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4396)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 2010, June, S.58-66

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 2215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=2215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2215, 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=2215)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 32(1997), S.169-196

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2299, 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=2299)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 32(1997), S.231-267

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=2782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2782, 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=2782)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991), S.78-98

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 4272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=4272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4272, 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=4272)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.591-632

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=4293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4293, 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=4293)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 36(2002), S.171-228

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=1071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1071, 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=1071)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper aims to provide an overview of automatic classification research, which focuses on issues related to the automatic classification of documents in a library environment. The review covers literature published in mainstream library and information science studies. The review was done on literature published in both academic and professional LIS journals and other documents. This review reveals that basically three types of research are being done on automatic classification: 1) hierarchical classification using different library classification schemes, 2) text categorization and document categorization using different type of classifiers with or without using training documents, and 3) automatic bibliographic classification. Predominantly this research is directed towards solving problems of organization of digital documents in an online environment. However, very little research is devoted towards solving the problems of arrangement of physical documents.

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=3781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3781, 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=3781)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2037-2062

0.0033277576 = product of:
  0.009983272 = sum of:
    0.009983272 = weight(_text_:information in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009983272 = score(doc=4281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is common knowledge that computer interfaces in different cultures vary. Interface designers present information in different languages, use different iconography to designate concepts, and employ different standards for dates, time, and numbers. These manifest differences beg the question of how easily an interface designed in one country can be used in and transferred to another country. Are the challenges involved in adaptation merely cosmetic or are they shaped by more profound forces? Do all cultures respond to interfaces in similar ways, or does culture itself shape user comprehension? If culture is a factor in explaining varied user reactions to comparable interfaces, what specific cultural dimensions are responsible for the divergences? Do differences reside mainly at the level of national cultures, or do they depend an other variables such as class, gender, age, education, and expertise with technology? In the face of a potentially large number of explanatory variables, how do we delimit a workable concept of culture and yet remain cognizant of other factors that might shape the results of culture and interface research? Questions such as these have been asked in the ergonomics community since the early 1970s, when the industrialization of developing countries created a need for more research an cultural differences (Honold, 1999), resulting in an increased interest in the universal applicability of ergonomic principles. This trend continued after the reunification of Germany and the emergence of market economies in Eastern Europe (Nielsen, 1990). In the mid-1990s, as markets outside the U.S. rapidly expanded, it became necessary to develop appropriate user interfaces for non-Western cultures in order to facilitate international cooperation. This fresh impetus for research led to the development of practical guidelines and a body of Gase studies and examples of possible solutions. Most recently we have seen attempts to provide a theoretical foundation for cross-cultural usability engineering and experimental comparison studies (Honold, 1999).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.257-310

0.0033277576 = product of:
  0.009983272 = sum of:
    0.009983272 = weight(_text_:information in 1479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009983272 = score(doc=1479,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1479, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1479)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This being the Birth Centenary.Year of Dr. S. R. Ranganathan, it was deemed as a befitting tribute to the author of Colon Classifiction to bring together all that has been published thus far on it and complile it in the form of a bibliographies are an important source of information on a particular field of study and research. A research worker has to carry out the literature survey on the area of interest which sometimes consumes many precious man hours in order to collect some relevent citations. Thus bibliographies are a useful source in saving the precious time and energy of the reseach workers, and lead them to the primary sources for carryying out the research further to the destination.

Content

Inhalt: General Classification, Colon Classification, Edition7, Philosophy, Conference, Literature Survey, Features, History. Countries and Areas , Theoru, Design of Classification, Classification Problems , Research in Classification, Trends in Classification, Depth Classification, Automatic Classification, Uses of Classification, Practical Classification, Application of Classification, Standards, Glossary.Teminology, classification and Reference Service, Classificationand Documentation, Classification and Communication, Classification and Retrieval, Comparison to Other Schemes, Canons, Isolates, Common Isolates , Space Isolates, Time Isolates, Special Isolates, Postulates, Fundamental Categories, Facet Formula, Optionl Facets, Rounds and Levels, Basic Subjects, Notation and Symbols, Array and Chanin, Devices, Mnemonics, Phase Relation, Systems and Specials, Book Number, Cooperative Calssification, Teaching of Classification, Classification of Specific Subjects, Book Science, Bibliography, Library and Information Science, Classification, Cataloguing, Mathematics, Cybernetics, Engineering, Computer, Chemistry, Crystallography, Technology. Food Technology, Corrosion, Parasitism, Geology , Agriculture, Zoology, Animal Husbandry, Medicine, Useful Arts, Military Science, Creative Arts, Aiterature, Sanskrit, Marathi, Tamil, Calssics, Linguistics, Philosophy, Ssocial Science, Geography, Maps, History , Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Law,

0.0032885293 = product of:
  0.009865588 = sum of:
    0.009865588 = weight(_text_:information in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009865588 = score(doc=2467,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.10842399 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
Consider movie listings in newspapers. Most Canadian newspapers list movie showtimes in two large blocks, for the two major theatre chains. The listings are ordered by region (in large cities), then theatre, then movie, and finally by showtime. Anyone wondering where and when a particular movie is playing must scan the complete listings. Determining what movies are playing in the next half hour is very difficult. When movie listings went onto the web, most sites used a simple faceted organization, always with movie name and theatre, and perhaps with region or neighbourhood (thankfully, theatre chains were left out). They make it easy to pick a theatre and see what movies are playing there, or to pick a movie and see what theatres are showing it. To complete the system, the sites should allow users to browse by neighbourhood and showtime, and to order the results in any way they desired. Thus could people easily find answers to such questions as, "Where is the new James Bond movie playing?" "What's showing at the Roxy tonight?" "I'm going to be out in in Little Finland this afternoon with three hours to kill starting at 2 ... is anything interesting playing?" A hypertext, faceted classification system makes more useful information more easily available to the user. Reading the books and articles below in chronological order will show a certain progression: suggestions that faceting and hypertext might work well, confidence that facets would work well if only someone would make such a system, and finally the beginning of serious work on actually designing, building, and testing faceted web sites. There is a solid basis of how to make faceted classifications (see Vickery in Recommended), but their application online is just starting. Work on XFML (see Van Dijck's work in Recommended) the Exchangeable Faceted Metadata Language, will make this easier. If it follows previous patterns, parts of the Internet community will embrace the idea and make open source software available for others to reuse. It will be particularly beneficial if professionals in both information studies and computer science can work together to build working systems, standards, and code. Each can benefit from the other's expertise in what can be a very complicated and technical area. One particularly nice thing about this area of research is that people interested in combining facets and the web often have web sites where they post their writings.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.00294135 = product of:
  0.0088240495 = sum of:
    0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 5841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088240495 = score(doc=5841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5841, 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=5841)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose To provide a close, detailed analysis of the frequency, nature, and depth of visible use of Michel Foucault's works by library and information science/studies (LIS) scholars. Design/methodology/approach The study conducted extensive full-text searches in a large number of electronically available LIS journal databases to find citations of Foucault's works, then examined each cited article to evaluate the nature and depth of use. Findings Most uses of Foucault are brief or in passing. In-depth explorations of Foucault's works are comparatively rare and relatively little-used by other LIS scholars. Yet the relatively brief uses of Foucault encompass a wide array of different topics spread across a wide spectrum of LIS journal literature. Research limitations/implications The study was limited to articles from particular relatively prominent LIS journals. Results might vary if different journals or non-journal literature were studied. More sophisticated bibliometric techniques might reveal different relative performance among journals and might better test, confirm, or reject various patterns and relationships found here. Other research approaches, such as discourse analysis, social network analysis, or scholar interviews, might reveal patterns of use and influence not visible in this literature sample. Originality/value This intensive study of both quality and quantity of citations may challenge some existing assumptions regarding citation analysis, plus illuminating Foucault scholarship. It also indicates possible problems for future application of artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to similar depth-of-use studies.

0.00294135 = product of:
  0.0088240495 = sum of:
    0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088240495 = score(doc=464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 464, 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=464)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.204-224

0.0020589451 = product of:
  0.006176835 = sum of:
    0.006176835 = weight(_text_:information in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006176835 = score(doc=4270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.87-144