Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Inhaltsanalyse"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Mai, J.-E.: Analysis in indexing : document and domain centered approaches (2005) 0.02 
    0.023416823 = product of:
  0.035125233 = sum of:
    0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 1024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01235367 = score(doc=1024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1024, 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=1024)
    0.022771563 = product of:
      0.045543127 = sum of:
        0.045543127 = weight(_text_:management in 1024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045543127 = score(doc=1024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1024, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.3, S.599-611
  2. White, M.D.; Marsh, E.E.: Content analysis : a flexible methodology (2006) 0.02 
    0.021104416 = product of:
  0.031656623 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
    0.021067765 = product of:
      0.04213553 = sum of:
        0.04213553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04213553 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.
    Source
    Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45
  3. Rorissa, A.: User-generated descriptions of individual images versus labels of groups of images : a comparison using basic level theory (2008) 0.02 
    0.019162996 = product of:
  0.028744493 = sum of:
    0.01247909 = weight(_text_:information in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01247909 = score(doc=2122,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2122, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2122)
    0.016265402 = product of:
      0.032530803 = sum of:
        0.032530803 = weight(_text_:management in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032530803 = score(doc=2122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Although images are visual information sources with little or no text associated with them, users still tend to use text to describe images and formulate queries. This is because digital libraries and search engines provide mostly text query options and rely on text annotations for representation and retrieval of the semantic content of images. While the main focus of image research is on indexing and retrieval of individual images, the general topic of image browsing and indexing, and retrieval of groups of images has not been adequately investigated. Comparisons of descriptions of individual images as well as labels of groups of images supplied by users using cognitive models are scarce. This work fills this gap. Using the basic level theory as a framework, a comparison of the descriptions of individual images and labels assigned to groups of images by 180 participants in three studies found a marked difference in their level of abstraction. Results confirm assertions by previous researchers in LIS and other fields that groups of images are labeled using more superordinate level terms while individual image descriptions are mainly at the basic level. Implications for design of image browsing interfaces, taxonomies, thesauri, and similar tools are discussed.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.5, S.1741-1753
  4. Rorissa, A.; Iyer, H.: Theories of cognition and image categorization : what category labels reveal about basic level theory (2008) 0.01 
    0.008645767 = product of:
  0.025937302 = sum of:
    0.025937302 = weight(_text_:information in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025937302 = score(doc=1958,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1383-1392
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content ... and relevance (2001) 0.01 
    0.0082357805 = product of:
  0.02470734 = sum of:
    0.02470734 = weight(_text_:information in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02470734 = score(doc=6032,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.774-778
    Theme
    Information
  6. Miene, A.; Hermes, T.; Ioannidis, G.: Wie kommt das Bild in die Datenbank? : Inhaltsbasierte Analyse von Bildern und Videos (2002) 0.01 
    0.0070592402 = product of:
  0.02117772 = sum of:
    0.02117772 = weight(_text_:information in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02117772 = score(doc=213,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Die verfügbare multimediale Information nimmt stetig zu, nicht zuletzt durch die Tag für Tag wachsende Zahl an neuer Information im Internet. Damit man dieser Flut Herr werden und diese Information wieder abrufbar machen kann, muss sie annotiert und geeignet in Datenbanken abgelegt werden. Hier besteht das Problem der manuellen Annotation, das einerseits durch die Ermüdung aufgrund der Routinearbeit und andererseits durch die Subjektivität des Annotierenden zu Fehlern in der Annotation führen kann. Unterstützende Systeme, die dem Dokumentar genau diese Routinearbeit abnehmen, können hier bis zu einem gewissen Grad Abhilfe schaffen. Die wissenschaftliche Erschließung von beispielsweise filmbeiträgen wird der Dokumentar zwar immer noch selbst machen müssen und auch sollen, aber die Erkennung und Dokumentation von sog. Einstellungsgrenzen kann durchaus automatisch mit Unterstützung eines Rechners geschehen. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir anhand von Projekten, die wir durchgeführt haben, wie weit diese Unterstützung des Dokumentars bei der Annotation von Bildern und Videos gehen kann
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 53(2002) H.1, S.15-21
  7. Sauperl, A.: Catalogers' common ground and shared knowledge (2004) 0.01 
    0.0050945682 = product of:
  0.015283704 = sum of:
    0.015283704 = weight(_text_:information in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015283704 = score(doc=2069,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.55-63
  8. Marsh, E.E.; White, M.D.: ¬A taxonomy of relationships between images and text (2003) 0.00 
    0.0049916366 = product of:
  0.014974909 = sum of:
    0.014974909 = weight(_text_:information in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014974909 = score(doc=4444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The paper establishes a taxonomy of image-text relationships that reflects the ways that images and text interact. It is applicable to all subject areas and document types. The taxonomy was developed to answer the research question: how does an illustration relate to the text with which it is associated, or, what are the functions of illustration? Developed in a two-stage process - first, analysis of relevant research in children's literature, dictionary development, education, journalism, and library and information design and, second, subsequent application of the first version of the taxonomy to 954 image-text pairs in 45 Web pages (pages with educational content for children, online newspapers, and retail business pages) - the taxonomy identifies 49 relationships and groups them in three categories according to the closeness of the conceptual relationship between image and text. The paper uses qualitative content analysis to illustrate use of the taxonomy to analyze four image-text pairs in government publications and discusses the implications of the research for information retrieval and document design.
  9. Andersen, J.; Christensen, F.S.: Wittgenstein and indexing theory (2001) 0.00 
    0.004159697 = product of:
  0.01247909 = sum of:
    0.01247909 = weight(_text_:information in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01247909 = score(doc=1590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Imprint
    Medford, NJ : Information Today
    Theme
    Information
  10. Garcia Jiménez, A.; Valle Gastaminza, F. del: From thesauri to ontologies: a case study in a digital visual context (2004) 0.00 
    0.004159697 = product of:
  0.01247909 = sum of:
    0.01247909 = weight(_text_:information in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01247909 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In this paper a framework for the construction and organization of knowledge organization and representation languages in the context of digital photograph collections is presented. It analyses exigencies of photographs as documentary objects, as well as several models of indexing, different proposals of languages and a theoretical revision of ontologies in this research field, in relation to visual documents. In considering the photograph as an analysis object, it is appropriate to study all its attributes: features, components or properties of an objeet that can be represented in an information processing system. The attributes which are related to visual features include cognitive and affective answers and elements that describe spatial, semantic, symbolic or emotional features about a photograph. In any case, it is necessary to treat: a) morphological and material attributes (emulsion, state of preservation); b) biographical attributes: (school or trend, publication or exhibition); c) attributes of content: what and how a photograph says something; d) relational attributes: visual documents establish relationships with other documents that can be analysed in order to understand them.
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  11. Inskip, C.; MacFarlane, A.; Rafferty, P.: Meaning, communication, music : towards a revised communication model (2008) 0.00 
    0.004159697 = product of:
  0.01247909 = sum of:
    0.01247909 = weight(_text_:information in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01247909 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - If an information retrieval system is going to be of value to the user then it must give meaning to the information which matches the meaning given to it by the user. The meaning given to music varies according to who is interpreting it - the author/composer, the performer, cataloguer or the listener - and this affects how music is organized and retrieved. This paper aims to examine the meaning of music, how meaning is communicated and suggests this may affect music retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Musicology is used to define music and examine its functions leading to a discussion of how music has been organised and described. Various ways of establishing the meaning of music are reviewed, focussing on established musical analysis techniques. It is suggested that traditional methods are of limited use with digitised popular music. A discussion of semiotics and a review of semiotic analysis in western art music leads to a discussion of semiotics of popular music and examines ideas of Middleton, Stefani and Tagg. Findings - Agreeing that music exists when communication takes place, a discussion of selected communication models leads to the proposal of a revised version of Tagg's model, adjusting it to include listener feedback. Originality/value - The outcome of the analysis is a revised version of Tagg's communication model, adapted to reflect user feedback. It is suggested that this revised communication model reflects the way in which meaning is given to music.
  12. Zarri, G.P.: Indexing and querying of narrative documents, a knowledge representation approach (2003) 0.00 
    0.0041178903 = product of:
  0.01235367 = sum of:
    0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01235367 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2691, 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=2691)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We describe here NKRL (Narrative Knowledge Representation Language), a semantic formalism for taking into account the characteristics of narrative multimedia documents. In these documents, the information content consists in the description of 'events' that relate the real or intended behaviour of some 'actors' (characters, personages, etc.). Narrative documents of an economic interest correspond to news stories, corporate documents, normative and legal texts, intelligence messages, representation of patient's medical records, etc. NKRL is characterised by the use of several knowledge representation principles and several high-level inference tools.
  13. Chen, H.: ¬An analysis of image queries in the field of art history (2001) 0.00 
    0.0041178903 = product of:
  0.01235367 = sum of:
    0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01235367 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5187, 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=5187)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.3, S.260-273
  14. Allen, R.B.; Wu, Y.: Metrics for the scope of a collection (2005) 0.00 
    0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 4570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=4570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4570, 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=4570)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.12, S.1243-1249
  15. Jens-Erik Mai, J.-E.: ¬The role of documents, domains and decisions in indexing (2004) 0.00 
    0.0033277576 = product of:
  0.009983272 = sum of:
    0.009983272 = weight(_text_:information in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009983272 = score(doc=2653,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2653, 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=2653)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    1. Introduction The document at hand is often regarded as the most important entity for analysis in the indexing situation. The indexer's focus is directed to the "entity and its faithful description" (Soergel, 1985, 227) and the indexer is advised to "stick to the text and the author's claims" (Lancaster, 2003, 37). The indexer's aim is to establish the subject matter based an an analysis of the document with the goal of representing the document as truthfully as possible and to ensure the subject representation's validity by remaining neutral and objective. To help indexers with their task they are guided towards particular and important attributes of the document that could help them determine the document's subject matter. The exact attributes the indexer is recommended to examine varies, but typical examples are: the title, the abstract, the table of contents, chapter headings, chapter subheadings, preface, introduction, foreword, the text itself, bibliographical references, index entries, illustrations, diagrams, and tables and their captions. The exact recommendations vary according to the type of document that is being indexed (monographs vs. periodical articles, for instance). It is clear that indexers should provide faithful descriptions, that indexers should represent the author's claims, and that the document's attributes are helpful points of analysis. However, indexers need much more guidance when determining the subject than simply the documents themselves. One approach that could be taken to handle the Situation is a useroriented approach in which it is argued that the indexer should ask, "how should I make this document ... visible to potential users? What terms should I use to convey its knowledge to those interested?" (Albrechtsen, 1993, 222). The basic idea is that indexers need to have the users' information needs and terminology in mind when determining the subject matter of documents as well as when selecting index terms.
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  16. Campbell, G.: Queer theory and the creation of contextual subject access tools for gay and lesbian communities (2000) 0.00 
    0.00294135 = product of:
  0.0088240495 = sum of:
    0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 6054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088240495 = score(doc=6054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6054, 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=6054)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization research has come to question the theoretical distinction between "aboutness" (a document's innate content) and "meaning" (the use to which a document is put). This distinction has relevance beyond Information Studies, particularly in relation to homosexual concerns. Literary criticism, in particular, frequently addresses the question: when is a work "about" homosexuality? This paper explores this literary debate and its implications for the design of subject access systems for gay and lesbian communities. By examining the literary criticism of Herman Melville's Billy Budd, particularly in relation to the theories of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in The Epistemology of the Closet (1990), this paper exposes three tensions that designers of gay and lesbian classifications and vocabularies can expect to face. First is a tension between essentialist and constructivist views of homosexuality, which will affect the choice of terms, categories, and references. Second is a tension between minoritizing and universalizing perspectives on homosexuality. Third is a redefined distinction between aboutness and meaning, in which aboutness refers not to stable document content, but to the system designer's inescapable social and ideological perspectives. Designers of subject access systems can therefore expect to work in a context of intense scrutiny and persistent controversy
  17. Rosso, M.A.: User-based identification of Web genres (2008) 0.00 
    0.00294135 = product of:
  0.0088240495 = sum of:
    0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088240495 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1863, 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=1863)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1053-1072
  18. Winget, M.: Describing art : an alternative approach to subject access and interpretation (2009) 0.00 
    0.00294135 = product of:
  0.0088240495 = sum of:
    0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 3618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088240495 = score(doc=3618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3618, 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=3618)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the art historical antecedents of providing subject access to images. After reviewing the assumptions and limitations inherent in the most prevalent descriptive method, the paper seeks to introduce a new model that allows for more comprehensive representation of visually-based cultural materials. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Panofsky's theory of iconography and iconology as the starting-point. Panofsky's conceptual model, while appropriate for art created in the Western academic tradition, ignores or misrepresents work from other eras or cultures. Continued dependence on Panofskian descriptive methods limits the functionality and usefulness of image representation systems. Findings - The paper recommends the development of a more precise and inclusive descriptive model for art objects, which is based on the premise that art is not another sort of text, and should not be interpreted as such. Practical implications - The paper provides suggestions for the development of representation models that will enhance the description of non-textual artifacts. Originality/value - The paper addresses issues in information science, the history of art, and computer science, and suggests that a new descriptive model would be of great value to both humanist and social science scholars.
  19. Sigel, A.: How can user-oriented depth analysis be constructively guided? (2000) 0.00 
    0.002911788 = product of:
  0.008735363 = sum of:
    0.008735363 = weight(_text_:information in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008735363 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    It is vital for library and information science to understand the subject indexing process thoroughly. However, document analysis, the first and most important step in indexing, has not received sufficient attention. As this is an exceptionally hard problem, we still do not dispose of a sound indexing theory. Therefore we have difficulties in teaching indexing and in explaining why a given subject representation is "better" than another. Technological advancements have not helped to close this fundamental gap. To proceed, we should ask the right questions instead. Several types of indexer inconsistencies can be explained as acceptable, yet different conceptualizations which resulting of the variety of groups dealing with a problem from their respective viewpoints. Multiple indexed documents are regarded as the normal case. Intersubjectively replicable indexing results are often questionable or do not constitute interesting cases of indexing at all. In the context of my ongoing dissertation in which I intend to develop an enhanced indexing theory by investigating improvements within a social sciences domain, this paper explains user-oriented selective depth analysis and why I chose that configuration. Strongly influenced by Mai's dissertation, I also communicate my first insights concerning current indexing theories. I agree that I cannot ignore epistemological stances and philosophical issues in language and meaning related to indexing and accept the openness of the interpretive nature of the indexing process. Although I present arguments against the employment of an indexing language as well, it is still indispensable in situations which demand easier access and control by devices. Despite the enormous difficulties the user-oriented and selective depth analysis poses, I argue that it is both feasible and useful if one achieves careful guidance of the possible interpretations. There is some hope because the number of useful interpretations is limited: Every summary is tailored to a purpose, audience and situation. Domain, discourse and social practice entail additional constraints. A pluralistic method mix that focusses on ecologically valid, holistic contexts and employs qualitative methods is recommended. Domain analysis urgently has to be made more practical and applicable. Only then we will be able to investigate empirically domains in order to identify their structures shaped by the corresponding discourse communities. We plan to represent the recognized problem structures and indexing questions of relevance to a small domain in formal, ontological computer models -- if we can find such stable knowledge structures. This would allow us to tailor dynamically summaries for user communities. For practical purposes we suggest to assume a less demanding position than Hjorland's "totality of the epistemological potential". It is sufficent that we identify and represent iteratively the information needs of today's user groups in interactive knowledge-based systems. The best way to formalize such knowledge gained about discourse communities is however unknown. Indexers should stay in direct contact with the community they serve or be part of it to ensure agreement with their viewpoints. Checklist/request-oriented indexing could be very helpful but it remains to be demonstrated how well it will be applicable in the social sciences. A frame-based representation or at least a sophisticated grouping of terms could help to express relational knowledge structures. There remains much work to do since in practice no one has shown yet how such an improved indexing system would work and if the indexing results were really "better".

Authors

Languages

  • e 18
  • d 1

Themes