-
Adler, M.: ¬The strangeness of subject cataloging : afterword (2020)
0.05
0.05159306 = product of:
0.08598843 = sum of:
0.007709928 = weight(_text_:a in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007709928 = score(doc=5887,freq=20.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
0.02480869 = product of:
0.04961738 = sum of:
0.04961738 = weight(_text_:dewey in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04961738 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.22988136 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.053469814 = product of:
0.10693963 = sum of:
0.10693963 = weight(_text_:melvil in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10693963 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
0.316871 = queryWeight, product of:
7.636444 = idf(docFreq=57, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.33748633 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.636444 = idf(docFreq=57, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- "I can't presume to know how other catalogers view the systems, information resources, and institutions with which they engage on a daily basis. David Paton gives us a glimpse in this issue of the affective experiences of bibliographers and catalogers of artists' books in South Africa, and it is clear that the emotional range among them is wide. What I can say is that catalogers' feelings and worldviews, whatever they may be, give the library its shape. I think we can agree that the librarians who constructed the Library of Congress Classification around 1900, Melvil Dewey, and the many classifiers around the world past and present, have had particular sets of desires around control and access and order. We all are asked to submit to those desires in our library work, as well as our own pursuit of knowledge and pleasure reading. And every decision regarding the aboutness of a book, or about where to place it within a particular discipline, takes place in a cataloger's affective and experiential world. While the classification provides the outlines, the catalogers color in the spaces with the books, based on their own readings of the book descriptions and their interpretations of the classification scheme. The decisions they make and the structures to which they are bound affect the circulation of books and their readers across the library. Indeed, some of the encounters will be unexpected, strange, frustrating, frightening, shame-inducing, awe-inspiring, and/or delightful. The emotional experiences of students described in Mabee and Fancher's article, as well as those of any visitor to the library, are all affected by classificatory design. One concern is that a library's ordering principles may reinforce or heighten already existing feelings of precarity or marginality. Because the classifications are hidden from patrons' view, it is difficult to measure the way the order affects a person's mind and body. That a person does not consciously register the associations does not mean that they are not affected."
- Content
- Afterword to a special issue "Strange Circulations".
- Type
- a
-
Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022)
0.03
0.029632801 = product of:
0.074082 = sum of:
0.06590439 = product of:
0.19771315 = sum of:
0.19771315 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19771315 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35179147 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008177614 = weight(_text_:a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008177614 = score(doc=862,freq=10.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges- summary and question answering- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and sequential questions initially posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, overall quality, and plagiarism risks. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's true initial thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswerable.
- Source
- https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
- Type
- a
-
Zhang, L.: ¬The knowledge organization education within and beyond the master of library and information science (2023)
0.02
0.024981549 = product of:
0.062453873 = sum of:
0.0074651055 = weight(_text_:a in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0074651055 = score(doc=1127,freq=12.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1127, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1127)
0.054988768 = weight(_text_:63 in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054988768 = score(doc=1127,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20323344 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2705695 = fieldWeight in 1127, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8978314 = idf(docFreq=896, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1127)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- By analyzing 63 English-speaking institutions that offer ALA-accredited master's programs in library and information studies, this research aims to explore the education for knowledge organization (KO) at different levels and across fields. This research examines the KO courses that are the required courses and elective courses in the MLIS programs, that are offered in other master's programs and graduate certificate programs, that are adapted to the undergraduate degree and certificate programs, and that are particularly developed for programs other than MLIS. The findings indicate that the great majority of MLIS programs still have a focus on or a significant component of knowledge organization as their required course and include the knowledge organization elective courses, particularly library cataloging and classification, on their curriculum. However, there is a variety of the offerings of KO related courses across the programs in an institution or in the same program across the institutions. It shows a promising trend that the traditional and new KO courses play an important role in many other programs, at different levels and across fields. With the conventional, adapted, or innovative content, these courses demonstrate that the principles and skills of knowledge organization are applicable to a wide variety of settings, can be integrated with other disciplinary knowledge and emerging technologies, and meet the needs of different career pathways and groups of learners.
- Type
- a
-
Moore, S.M.; Kiser, T.; Hodge, C.: Classification of print-based cartographic materials : a survey and analysis (2022)
0.02
0.023225274 = product of:
0.058063183 = sum of:
0.008445803 = weight(_text_:a in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008445803 = score(doc=1109,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
0.04961738 = product of:
0.09923476 = sum of:
0.09923476 = weight(_text_:dewey in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09923476 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.45976272 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper examines the predominant systems used for the classification of print-based cartographic materials (primarily atlases and sheet maps). We present the results of a brief, widely distributed survey on the topic, followed by discussions of the distinctive characteristics of the classification systems used by survey respondents. The Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification systems were found to be widely used, with several other schemes also in use.
- Type
- a
-
Higgins, C.: 'I coulda had class' : the difficulties of classifying film in Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification (2022)
0.02
0.022513729 = product of:
0.05628432 = sum of:
0.0036571398 = weight(_text_:a in 1095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0036571398 = score(doc=1095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1095)
0.05262718 = product of:
0.10525436 = sum of:
0.10525436 = weight(_text_:dewey in 1095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10525436 = score(doc=1095,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.487652 = fieldWeight in 1095, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1095)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper analyzes how two systems of classification - Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification - are applied to physical collections of films within libraries. It studies the history of the evolving approach to classification of film in these schemes, and identifies several ways that the underlying principles and philosophical assumptions of both are unconducive to arrangements of films. It also identifies several practical failings and contradictions within these systems, and confusions as to how their principles are to be mapped onto non-book objects of cultural production. The paper concludes that many of these failings are born of uncritical assumptions about film culture, whose differences from literary productions may not have been fully appreciated.
- Type
- a
-
Clarke, R.I.: Library classification systems in the U.S. : basic ideas and examples (2021)
0.02
0.020322114 = product of:
0.050805286 = sum of:
0.0073900777 = weight(_text_:a in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073900777 = score(doc=705,freq=6.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.043415207 = product of:
0.086830415 = sum of:
0.086830415 = weight(_text_:dewey in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086830415 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.40229237 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article offers a basic introduction to classification in the context of librarianship in the United States with an aim toward filling gaps in formal education and practical experience. The article defines the concept of classification and discusses the goals and purposes of classification, both functional and intellectual. Overviews of two common classification systems frequently used in U.S. libraries are presented: Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Library of Congress Classification (LCC), as well as an introduction to a group of classifications known as "reader-interest classifications."
- Type
- a
-
Hider, P.; Coe, M.: Academic disciplines in the context of library classification : mapping university faculty structures to the DDC and LCC schemes (2022)
0.02
0.019779673 = product of:
0.04944918 = sum of:
0.0060339733 = weight(_text_:a in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0060339733 = score(doc=709,freq=4.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
0.043415207 = product of:
0.086830415 = sum of:
0.086830415 = weight(_text_:dewey in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086830415 = score(doc=709,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.40229237 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- We investigated the extent to which the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification reflect the organizational structures of Australian universities. The mapping of the faculty structures of ten universities to the two schemes showed strong alignment, with very few fields represented in the names of the organizational units not covered at all by either bibliographic scheme. This suggests a degree of universality and "scientific and educational consensus" with respect to both the schemes and academic disciplines. The article goes on to discuss the concept of discipline and its application in bibliographic classification.
- Type
- a
-
Gnoli, C.: Faceted classifications as linked data : a logical analysis (2021)
0.02
0.018468466 = product of:
0.046171162 = sum of:
0.008958126 = weight(_text_:a in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008958126 = score(doc=452,freq=12.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
0.037213035 = product of:
0.07442607 = sum of:
0.07442607 = weight(_text_:dewey in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07442607 = score(doc=452,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.34482205 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Faceted knowledge organization systems have sophisticated logical structures, making their representation as linked data a demanding task. The term facet is often used in ambiguous ways: while in thesauri facets only work as semantic categories, in classification schemes they also have syntactic functions. The need to convert the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) into SKOS stimulated a more general analysis of the different kinds of syntactic facets, as can be represented in terms of RDF properties and their respective domain and range. A nomenclature is proposed, distinguishing between common facets, which can be appended to any class, that is, have an unrestricted domain; and special facets, which are exclusive to some class, that is, have a restricted domain. In both cases, foci can be taken from any other class (unrestricted range: free facets), or only from subclasses of an existing class (parallel facets), or be defined specifically for the present class (bound facets). Examples are given of such cases in ILC and in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).
- Type
- a
-
Dewey, S.H.: Foucault's toolbox : use of Foucault's writings in LIS journal literature, 1990-2016 (2020)
0.02
0.015130216 = product of:
0.03782554 = sum of:
0.006814678 = weight(_text_:a in 5841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006814678 = score(doc=5841,freq=10.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5841, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5841)
0.031010862 = product of:
0.062021725 = sum of:
0.062021725 = weight(_text_:dewey in 5841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062021725 = score(doc=5841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2873517 = fieldWeight in 5841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5841)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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.
- Type
- a
-
Buente, W.; Baybayan, C.K.; Hajibayova, L.; McCorkhill, M.; Panchyshyn, R.: Exploring the renaissance of wayfinding and voyaging through the lens of knowledge representation, organization and discovery systems (2020)
0.01
0.0148424385 = product of:
0.037106097 = sum of:
0.006095233 = weight(_text_:a in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006095233 = score(doc=105,freq=8.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
0.031010862 = product of:
0.062021725 = sum of:
0.062021725 = weight(_text_:dewey in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062021725 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2873517 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis from an ethical perspective of how the concept of indigenous wayfinding and voyaging is mapped in knowledge representation, organization and discovery systems. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Library of Congress Subject Headings, the Library of Congress Classifications systems and the Web of Science citation database were methodically examined to determine how these systems represent and facilitate the discovery of indigenous knowledge of wayfinding and voyaging. Findings The analysis revealed that there was no dedicated representation of the indigenous practices of wayfinding and voyaging in the major knowledge representation, organization and discovery systems. By scattering indigenous practice across various, often very broad and unrelated classes, coherence in the record is disrupted, resulting in misrepresentation of these indigenous concepts. Originality/value This study contributes to a relatively limited research literature on representation and organization of indigenous knowledge of wayfinding and voyaging. This study calls to foster a better understanding and appreciation for the rich knowledge that indigenous cultures provide for an enlightened society.
- Type
- a
-
Fugmann, R.: What is information? : an information veteran looks back (2022)
0.01
0.013681978 = product of:
0.034204945 = sum of:
0.006095233 = weight(_text_:a in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006095233 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
0.02810971 = product of:
0.05621942 = sum of:
0.05621942 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05621942 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 18. 8.2022 19:22:57
- Type
- a
-
Oh, D.-G.: Comparative analysis of national classification systems : cases of Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) and Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) (2023)
0.01
0.013623391 = product of:
0.034058478 = sum of:
0.0030476165 = weight(_text_:a in 1121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0030476165 = score(doc=1121,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 1121, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1121)
0.031010862 = product of:
0.062021725 = sum of:
0.062021725 = weight(_text_:dewey in 1121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062021725 = score(doc=1121,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21583907 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2873517 = fieldWeight in 1121, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2016215 = idf(docFreq=661, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1121)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) and Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) are national classification systems of Korea and Japan. They have been used widely in many libraries of each country and maintained successfully by each national library associations of Korean Library Association (KLA) and Japan Library Association (JLA). This study compares the general characteristics of these two national classification systems using their latest editions of KDC 6 and NDC 10. After reviewing the former research, their origins, general history and development, and usages were briefly compared. Various aspects including classification by discipline, not by subjects, decimal expansion of the classes using pure notations of Arabic, hierarchical structure, and mnemonics quality are checked for both systems. Results of the comparative analyses of major auxiliary tables, main classes and 100 divisions of schedules of two systems are suggested one by one with special regards to Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). The analyses focus on the differences between both systems as well as the characteristics which reflect the local situations of both countries. It suggests some ideas for future developments and research based on the results of their strengths and weaknesses.
- Type
- a
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.01
0.012386131 = product of:
0.030965328 = sum of:
0.01128853 = weight(_text_:a in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01128853 = score(doc=40,freq=14.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.019676797 = product of:
0.039353594 = sum of:
0.039353594 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039353594 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
- Type
- a
-
Wu, P.F.: Veni, vidi, vici? : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.01
0.011284049 = product of:
0.028210122 = sum of:
0.008533326 = weight(_text_:a in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008533326 = score(doc=896,freq=8.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
0.019676797 = product of:
0.039353594 = sum of:
0.039353594 = weight(_text_:22 in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039353594 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- JASIST has in recent years received many submissions reporting data analytics based on "Big Data" of online reviews scraped from various platforms. By outlining major issues in this type of scape-and-report scholarship and providing a set of recommendations, this essay encourages online reviews researchers to look at Big Data with a critical eye and treat online reviews as a sociotechnical "thing" produced within the fabric of sociomaterial life.
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:33:53
- Type
- a
-
Morris, V.: Automated language identification of bibliographic resources (2020)
0.01
0.010945583 = product of:
0.027363956 = sum of:
0.004876186 = weight(_text_:a in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004876186 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
0.022487769 = product of:
0.044975538 = sum of:
0.044975538 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044975538 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 2. 3.2020 19:04:22
- Type
- a
-
Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020)
0.01
0.010616684 = product of:
0.02654171 = sum of:
0.009675884 = weight(_text_:a in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009675884 = score(doc=5996,freq=14.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
0.016865825 = product of:
0.03373165 = sum of:
0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373165 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper contains a report of two interdependent knowledge organization (KO) projects for an LGBT2QIA+ library. The authors, in the context of volunteer library work for an independent library, redesigned the classification system and subject cataloguing guidelines to centre LGBT2QIA+ subjects. We discuss the priorities of creating and maintaining knowledge organization systems for a historically marginalized community and address the challenge that queer subjectivity poses to the goals of KO. The classification system features a focus on identity and physically reorganizes the library space in a way that accounts for the multiple and overlapping labels that constitute the currently articulated boundaries of this community. The subject heading system focuses on making visible topics and elements of identity made invisible by universal systems and by the newly implemented classification system. We discuss how this project may inform KO for other marginalized subjects, particularly through process and documentation that prioritizes transparency and the acceptance of an unfinished endpoint for queer KO.
- Date
- 6.10.2020 21:22:33
- Type
- a
-
Cheti, A.; Viti, E.: Functionality and merits of a faceted thesaurus : the case of the Nuovo soggettario (2023)
0.01
0.010329581 = product of:
0.02582395 = sum of:
0.008958126 = weight(_text_:a in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008958126 = score(doc=1181,freq=12.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
0.016865825 = product of:
0.03373165 = sum of:
0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373165 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The Nuovo soggettario, the official Italian subject indexing system edited by the National Central Library of Florence, is made up of interactive components, the core of which is a general thesaurus and some rules of a conventional syntax for subject string construction. The Nuovo soggettario Thesaurus is in compliance with ISO 25964: 2011-2013, IFLA LRM, and FAIR principle (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). Its open data are available in the Zthes, MARC21, and in SKOS formats and allow for interoperability with l library, archive, and museum databases. The Thesaurus's macrostructure is organized into four fundamental macro-categories, thirteen categories, and facets. The facets allow for the orderly development of hierarchies, thereby limiting polyhierarchies and promoting the grouping of homogenous concepts. This paper addresses the main features and peculiarities which have characterized the consistent development of this categorical structure and its effects on the syntactic sphere in a predominantly pre-coordinated usage context.
- Date
- 26.11.2023 18:59:22
- Type
- a
-
Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023)
0.01
0.010284308 = product of:
0.02571077 = sum of:
0.0060339733 = weight(_text_:a in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0060339733 = score(doc=997,freq=4.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
0.019676797 = product of:
0.039353594 = sum of:
0.039353594 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039353594 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In recent years, cultural heritage institutions have been exploring the benefits of applying Linked Open Data to their catalogs and digital materials. Innovative and creative methods have emerged to publish and reuse digital contents to promote computational access, such as the concepts of Labs and Collections as Data. Data quality has become a requirement for researchers and training methods based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article explores how the quality of Linked Open Data made available by cultural heritage institutions can be automatically assessed. The results obtained can be useful for other institutions who wish to publish and assess their collections.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:23:31
- Type
- a
-
Geras, A.; Siudem, G.; Gagolewski, M.: Should we introduce a dislike button for academic articles? (2020)
0.01
0.010017375 = product of:
0.02504344 = sum of:
0.008177614 = weight(_text_:a in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008177614 = score(doc=5620,freq=10.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5620, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5620)
0.016865825 = product of:
0.03373165 = sum of:
0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373165 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5620, 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=5620)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- There is a mutual resemblance between the behavior of users of the Stack Exchange and the dynamics of the citations accumulation process in the scientific community, which enabled us to tackle the outwardly intractable problem of assessing the impact of introducing "negative" citations. Although the most frequent reason to cite an article is to highlight the connection between the 2 publications, researchers sometimes mention an earlier work to cast a negative light. While computing citation-based scores, for instance, the h-index, information about the reason why an article was mentioned is neglected. Therefore, it can be questioned whether these indices describe scientific achievements accurately. In this article we shed insight into the problem of "negative" citations, analyzing data from Stack Exchange and, to draw more universal conclusions, we derive an approximation of citations scores. Here we show that the quantified influence of introducing negative citations is of lesser importance and that they could be used as an indicator of where the attention of the scientific community is allocated.
- Date
- 6. 1.2020 18:10:22
- Type
- a
-
Park, Y.J.: ¬A socio-technological model of search information divide in US cities (2021)
0.01
0.009672042 = product of:
0.024180105 = sum of:
0.0073142797 = weight(_text_:a in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0073142797 = score(doc=184,freq=8.0), product of:
0.047845192 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
0.016865825 = product of:
0.03373165 = sum of:
0.03373165 = weight(_text_:22 in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373165 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530693 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494574 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 184, 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=184)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination. Design/methodology/approach Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis. Findings Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found. Originality/value The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Type
- a
