Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Inhaltsanalyse"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Volpers, H.: Inhaltsanalyse (2013) 0.03 
    0.027619066 = product of:
  0.060761943 = sum of:
    0.006345466 = product of:
      0.012690932 = sum of:
        0.012690932 = weight(_text_:h in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012690932 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
    0.00343714 = weight(_text_:s in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00343714 = score(doc=1018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
    0.02204492 = weight(_text_:u in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02204492 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
    0.02620087 = weight(_text_:k in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02620087 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.27608594 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
  0.45454547 = coord(5/11)
    Pages
    S.412-424
    Source
    Handbuch Methoden der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft: Bibliotheks-, Benutzerforschung, Informationsanalyse. Hrsg.: K. Umlauf, S. Fühles-Ubach u. M.S. Seadle
    Type
    a
  2. Knautz, K.; Dröge, E.; Finkelmeyer, S.; Guschauski, D.; Juchem, K.; Krzmyk, C.; Miskovic, D.; Schiefer, J.; Sen, E.; Verbina, J.; Werner, N.; Stock, W.G.: Indexieren von Emotionen bei Videos (2010) 0.02 
    0.015450322 = product of:
  0.042488385 = sum of:
    0.0054389704 = product of:
      0.010877941 = sum of:
        0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010877941 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023430442 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3637, 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=3637)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=3637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
    0.03176025 = weight(_text_:k in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03176025 = score(doc=3637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.33466667 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 61(2010) H.4, S.221-236
    Type
    a
  3. Arastoopoor, S.; Fattahi, R.: Users' perception of aboutness and ofness in images : an approach to subject indexing based on Ervin Panofsky's theory and users'' view (2012) 0.01 
    0.01420978 = product of:
  0.039076895 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=872,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 872, 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=872)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=872)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=872,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 872, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=872)
    0.015746372 = weight(_text_:u in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015746372 = score(doc=872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=872)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    It is widely accepted that subject indexing of an image is based on a two-dimensional approach. The first is the ofness and the second focuses on aboutness of the image. Assigning a suitable set of subject tags based on these two groups depends, to a great deal, on users' perception of the image. This study aims at analyzing users' perception of aboutness and ofness of images. 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in two phases. In the first phase a collection of 10 widely known photographs were given to the interviewees and they were asked to assign subject tags (as many as they wanted) to each image. In the second phase some facts regarding each image were given to him / her to assign further tags (again as many as they wanted) or even modify their previous tags. The results show that the interviewees do focus both on ofness and aboutness in subject tagging; but it seems that they emphasize more on aboutness in describing images. On the other hand, as soon as the interviewees were able to distinguish the iconographical ofness, they could speak of iconographical and iconological aboutness. The results also show that subject indexers must focus on the iconographical level, especially regarding those tags which represent the ofness at this level.
    Pages
    S.345-351
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  4. Raieli, R.: ¬The semantic hole : enthusiasm and caution around multimedia information retrieval (2012) 0.01 
    0.01208538 = product of:
  0.033234794 = sum of:
    0.0019525366 = weight(_text_:a in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019525366 = score(doc=4888,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4888, 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=4888)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=4888,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
    0.012734452 = product of:
      0.025468905 = sum of:
        0.025468905 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025468905 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Date
    22. 1.2012 13:02:10
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Enser, P.G.B.: Visual image retrieval. In: Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.3-42.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22
    Type
    a
  5. Chen, S.-J.; Lee, H.-L.: Art images and mental associations : a preliminary exploration (2014) 0.01 
    0.008883578 = product of:
  0.024429837 = sum of:
    0.0054389704 = product of:
      0.010877941 = sum of:
        0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010877941 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=1416,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=1416,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
    0.010805541 = product of:
      0.021611081 = sum of:
        0.021611081 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021611081 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    This paper reports on the preliminary findings of a study that explores mental associations made by novices viewing art images. In a controlled environment, 20 Taiwanese college students responded to the question "What does the painting remind you of?" after viewing each digitized image of 15 oil paintings by a famous Taiwanese artist. Rather than focusing on the representation or interpretation of art, the study attempted to solicit information about how non-experts are stimulated by art. This paper reports on the analysis of participant responses to three of the images, and describes a12-type taxonomy of association emerged from the analysis. While 9 of the types are derived and adapted from facets in the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, three new types - Artistic Influence Association, Reactive Association, and Prototype Association - are discovered. The conclusion briefly discusses both the significance of the findings and the implications for future research.
    Pages
    S.144-151
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
    Type
    a
  6. Moraes, J.B.E. de: Aboutness in fiction : methodological perspectives for knowledge organization (2012) 0.01 
    0.008833611 = product of:
  0.03238991 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 856, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=856)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=856)
    0.025194194 = weight(_text_:u in 856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025194194 = score(doc=856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=856)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Pages
    S.242-248
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  7. Pozzi de Sousa, B.; Ortega, C.D.: Aspects regarding the notion of subject in the context of different theoretical trends : teaching approaches in Brazil (2018) 0.01 
    0.008480695 = product of:
  0.031095881 = sum of:
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4707, 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=4707)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
    0.025194194 = weight(_text_:u in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025194194 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Pages
    S.74-85
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
    Type
    a
  8. Shaw, R.: Information organization and the philosophy of history (2013) 0.01 
    0.008098599 = product of:
  0.02969486 = sum of:
    0.0047346503 = weight(_text_:a in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047346503 = score(doc=946,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 946, 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=946)
    0.022529786 = weight(_text_:r in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022529786 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The philosophy of history can help articulate problems relevant to information organization. One such problem is "aboutness": How do texts relate to the world? In response to this problem, philosophers of history have developed theories of colligation describing how authors bind together phenomena under organizing concepts. Drawing on these ideas, I present a theory of subject analysis that avoids the problematic illusion of an independent "landscape" of subjects. This theory points to a broad vision of the future of information organization and some specific challenges to be met.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1092-1103
    Type
    a
  9. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment strength detection for the social web (2012) 0.01 
    0.0064998595 = product of:
  0.023832817 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=4972,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.163-173
    Type
    a
  10. Kessel, K.: Who's afraid of the big, bad uktena mster? : subject cataloging for images (2016) 0.01 
    0.00642816 = product of:
  0.03535488 = sum of:
    0.005411029 = weight(_text_:a in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005411029 = score(doc=3003,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3003, 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=3003)
    0.02994385 = weight(_text_:k in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02994385 = score(doc=3003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.31552678 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This article describes the difference between cataloging images and cataloging books, the obstacles to including subject data in image cataloging records and how these obstacles can be overcome to make image collections more accessible. I call for participants to help create a subject authority reference resource for non-Western art. This article is an expanded and revised version of a presentation for the 2016 Joint ARLIS/VRA conference in Seattle.
    Type
    a
  11. Hjoerland, B.: Subject (of documents) (2016) 0.01 
    0.0056154616 = product of:
  0.020590026 = sum of:
    0.0027613041 = weight(_text_:a in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027613041 = score(doc=3182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.
    Content
    Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.
    Type
    a
  12. Franke-Maier, M.; Harbeck, M.: Superman = Persepolis = Naruto? : Herausforderungen und Probleme der formalen und inhaltlichen Vielfalt von Comics und Comicforschung für die Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (2016) 0.01 
    0.0054848418 = product of:
  0.020111086 = sum of:
    0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 3306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023430442 = score(doc=3306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3306, 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=3306)
    0.01568482 = product of:
      0.06273928 = sum of:
        0.06273928 = weight(_text_:o in 3306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273928 = score(doc=3306,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.47037077 = fieldWeight in 3306, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3306)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 3306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=3306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3306)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Content
    https://www.o-bib.de/article/view/2016H4S186-201. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2016H4S186-201. Vortrag, Leipziger Bibliothekskongresses 2016.
    Source
    o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 3(2016) Nr.4, S.243-256
    Type
    a
  13. Saif, H.; He, Y.; Fernandez, M.; Alani, H.: Contextual semantics for sentiment analysis of Twitter (2016) 0.00 
    0.0031439455 = product of:
  0.0115278 = sum of:
    0.0064098886 = product of:
      0.012819777 = sum of:
        0.012819777 = weight(_text_:h in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012819777 = score(doc=2667,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 2667, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=2667,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2667, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2667)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2667)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Sentiment analysis on Twitter has attracted much attention recently due to its wide applications in both, commercial and public sectors. In this paper we present SentiCircles, a lexicon-based approach for sentiment analysis on Twitter. Different from typical lexicon-based approaches, which offer a fixed and static prior sentiment polarities of words regardless of their context, SentiCircles takes into account the co-occurrence patterns of words in different contexts in tweets to capture their semantics and update their pre-assigned strength and polarity in sentiment lexicons accordingly. Our approach allows for the detection of sentiment at both entity-level and tweet-level. We evaluate our proposed approach on three Twitter datasets using three different sentiment lexicons to derive word prior sentiments. Results show that our approach significantly outperforms the baselines in accuracy and F-measure for entity-level subjectivity (neutral vs. polar) and polarity (positive vs. negative) detections. For tweet-level sentiment detection, our approach performs better than the state-of-the-art SentiStrength by 4-5% in accuracy in two datasets, but falls marginally behind by 1% in F-measure in the third dataset.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.1, S.5-19
    Type
    a
  14. Xie, H.; Li, X.; Wang, T.; Lau, R.Y.K.; Wong, T.-L.; Chen, L.; Wang, F.L.; Li, Q.: Incorporating sentiment into tag-based user profiles and resource profiles for personalized search in folksonomy (2016) 0.00 
    0.0022196872 = product of:
  0.008138853 = sum of:
    0.0036259806 = product of:
      0.007251961 = sum of:
        0.007251961 = weight(_text_:h in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007251961 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=2671,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of user-generated data in collaborative tagging (a.k.a. folksonomy-based) systems due to the prevailing of Web 2.0 communities. To effectively assist users to find their desired resources, it is critical to understand user behaviors and preferences. Tag-based profile techniques, which model users and resources by a vector of relevant tags, are widely employed in folksonomy-based systems. This is mainly because that personalized search and recommendations can be facilitated by measuring relevance between user profiles and resource profiles. However, conventional measurements neglect the sentiment aspect of user-generated tags. In fact, tags can be very emotional and subjective, as users usually express their perceptions and feelings about the resources by tags. Therefore, it is necessary to take sentiment relevance into account into measurements. In this paper, we present a novel generic framework SenticRank to incorporate various sentiment information to various sentiment-based information for personalized search by user profiles and resource profiles. In this framework, content-based sentiment ranking and collaborative sentiment ranking methods are proposed to obtain sentiment-based personalized ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of integrating sentiment information to address the problem of the personalized tag-based search in collaborative tagging systems. Moreover, we compare the proposed sentiment-based personalized search with baselines in the experiments, the results of which have verified the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In addition, we study the influences by popular sentiment dictionaries, and SenticNet is the most prominent knowledge base to boost the performance of personalized search in folksonomy.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.1, S.61-72
    Type
    a
  15. Buckland, M.K.: Obsolescence in subject description (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015837002 = product of:
  0.008710351 = sum of:
    0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066271294 = score(doc=299,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The paper aims to explain the character and causes of obsolescence in assigned subject descriptors. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis with examples and reference to existing literature. Findings - Subject description comes in two forms: assigning the name or code of a subject to a document and assigning a document to a named subject category. Each method associates a document with the name of a subject. This naming activity is the site of tensions between the procedural need of information systems for stable records and the inherent multiplicity and instability of linguistic expressions. As languages change, previously assigned subject descriptions become obsolescent. The issues, tensions, and compromises involved are introduced. Originality/value - Drawing on the work of Robert Fairthorne and others, an explanation of the unavoidable obsolescence of assigned subject headings is presented. The discussion relates to libraries, but the same issues arise in any context in which subject description is expected to remain useful for an extended period of time.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 68(2012) no.2, S.154-161
    Type
    a
  16. Wilson, M.J.; Wilson, M.L.: ¬A comparison of techniques for measuring sensemaking and learning within participant-generated summaries (2013) 0.00 
    0.0014382693 = product of:
  0.007910481 = sum of:
    0.0061744633 = weight(_text_:a in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061744633 = score(doc=612,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.291-306
    Type
    a
  17. Bertola, F.; Patti, V.: Ontology-based affective models to organize artworks in the social semantic web (2016) 0.00 
    0.0013806598 = product of:
  0.0075936285 = sum of:
    0.0058576106 = weight(_text_:a in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058576106 = score(doc=2669,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we focus on applying sentiment analysis to resources from online art collections, by exploiting, as information source, tags intended as textual traces that visitors leave to comment artworks on social platforms. We present a framework where methods and tools from a set of disciplines, ranging from Semantic and Social Web to Natural Language Processing, provide us the building blocks for creating a semantic social space to organize artworks according to an ontology of emotions. The ontology is inspired by the Plutchik's circumplex model, a well-founded psychological model of human emotions. Users can be involved in the creation of the emotional space, through a graphical interactive interface. The development of such semantic space enables new ways of accessing and exploring art collections. The affective categorization model and the emotion detection output are encoded into W3C ontology languages. This gives us the twofold advantage to enable tractable reasoning on detected emotions and related artworks, and to foster the interoperability and integration of tools developed in the Semantic Web and Linked Data community. The proposal has been evaluated against a real-word case study, a dataset of tagged multimedia artworks from the ArsMeteo Italian online collection, and validated through a user study.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.1, S.139-162
    Type
    a
  18. Clavier, V.; Paganelli, C.: Including authorial stance in the indexing of scientific documents (2012) 0.00 
    0.0013313505 = product of:
  0.007322428 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=320,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 320, 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=320)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This article argues that authorial stance should be taken into account in the indexing of scientific documents. Authorial stance has been widely studied in linguistics and is a typical feature of scientific writing that reveals the uniqueness of each author's perspective, their scientific contribution, and their thinking. We argue that authorial stance guides the reading of scientific documents and that it can be used to characterize the knowledge contained in such documents. Our research has previously shown that people reading dissertations are interested both in a topic and in a document's authorial stance. Now, we would like to propose a two-tiered indexing system. Dissertations would first be divided into paragraphs; then, each information unit would be defined by topic and by the markers of authorial stance present in the document.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.4, S.292-299
    Type
    a
  19. Nahotko, M.: Genre groups in knowledge organization (2016) 0.00 
    0.001302741 = product of:
  0.0071650753 = sum of:
    0.0047346503 = weight(_text_:a in 5139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047346503 = score(doc=5139,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5139, 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=5139)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 5139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=5139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5139)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The article is an introduction to the development of Andersen's concept of textual tools used in knowledge organization (KO) in light of the theory of genres and activity systems. In particular, the question is based on the concepts of genre connectivity and genre group, in addition to previously established concepts such as genre hierarchy, set, system, and repertoire. Five genre groups used in KO are described. The analysis of groups, systems, and selected genres used in KO is provided, based on the method proposed by Yates and Orlikowski. The aim is to show the genre system as a part of the activity system, and thus as a framework for KO.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.8, S.553-582
    Type
    a
  20. Hauser, E.; Tennis, J.T.: Episemantics: aboutness as aroundness (2019) 0.00 
    0.001185225 = product of:
  0.006518737 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=5640,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5640, 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=5640)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.8, S.590-595
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 24
  • d 3

Themes