Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020242441 = product of:
  0.07084854 = sum of:
    0.06326807 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06326807 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26682967 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03730009 = queryNorm
        0.23711035 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.0075804703 = product of:
      0.015160941 = sum of:
        0.015160941 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015160941 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...

0.018076593 = product of:
  0.12653615 = sum of:
    0.12653615 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12653615 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26682967 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03730009 = queryNorm
        0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Analysis of user viewing and query-matching behavior furnishes additional evidence that the relevance of retrieved images for system users may arise from descriptions of objects and content-based elements that are not evident or not even present in the image. This investigation looks at how users assign pre-determined query terms to retrieved images, as well as looking at a post-retrieval process of image engagement to user cognitive assessments of meaningful terms. Additionally, affective/emotion-based query terms appear to be an important descriptive category for image retrieval. A system for capturing (eliciting) human interpretations derived from cognitive engagements with viewed images could further enhance the efficiency of image retrieval systems stemming from traditional indexing methods and technology-based content extraction algorithms. An approach to such a system is posited.

0.015063827 = product of:
  0.105446786 = sum of:
    0.105446786 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105446786 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26682967 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03730009 = queryNorm
        0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.014912429 = product of:
  0.104387 = sum of:
    0.104387 = weight(_text_:interpretations in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104387 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26682967 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03730009 = queryNorm
        0.3912121 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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".

0.004139941 = product of:
  0.028979586 = sum of:
    0.028979586 = product of:
      0.057959173 = sum of:
        0.057959173 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 2203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057959173 = score(doc=2203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18058759 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 2203, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.003609748 = product of:
  0.025268236 = sum of:
    0.025268236 = product of:
      0.050536472 = sum of:
        0.050536472 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050536472 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.0034499508 = product of:
  0.024149654 = sum of:
    0.024149654 = product of:
      0.04829931 = sum of:
        0.04829931 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04829931 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18058759 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Für die inhaltliche Erschließung von Sach- und Fachliteratur stehen heutzutage etablierte Verfahren und Standards zur Verfügung. Anders verhält es sich dagegen mit der Erschließung von Schöner Literatur und Bildern. Beide Medien sind sehr verschieden und haben doch eines gemeinsam. Sie lassen sich mit den Regeln für Sach- und Fachliteratur nicht zufriedenstellend inhaltlich erschließen. Dieses Problem erkannten in den 1970er und 80er Jahren beide Autoren, deren Methoden ich hier verglichen habe. Annelise Mark Pejtersen bemühte sich um eine Lösung für die Schöne Literatur und wählte dabei einen empirischen Ansatz. Sara Shatford versuchte durch theoretische Überlegungen eine Lösung für Bilder zu erarbeiten. Der empirische wie der theoretische Ansatz führten zu Methoden, die das jeweilige Medium unter verschiedenen Aspekten betrachten. Diese Aspekten basieren in beiden Fällen auf denselben Fragen. Dennoch unterscheiden sie sich stark voneinander sowohl im Hinblick auf die Inhalte, die sie aufnehmen können, als auch hinsichtlich ihrer Struktur. Eine Anwendung einer der Methoden auf das jeweils andere Medium erscheint daher nicht sinnvoll. In dieser Arbeit werden die Methoden von Pejtersen und Shatford zunächst einzeln erläutert. Im Anschluss werden die Aspekte beider Methoden vergleichend gegenübergestellt. Dazu werden ausgewählte Beispiele mit beiden Methoden erschlossen. Abschließend wird geprüft, ob die wechselseitige Erschließung, wie sie im Vergleich angewendet wurde, in der Praxis sinnvoll ist und ob es Medien gibt, deren Erschließung mit beiden Methoden interessant wäre.

0.0028877987 = product of:
  0.02021459 = sum of:
    0.02021459 = product of:
      0.04042918 = sum of:
        0.04042918 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04042918 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0028877987 = product of:
  0.02021459 = sum of:
    0.02021459 = product of:
      0.04042918 = sum of:
        0.04042918 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04042918 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0025524772 = product of:
  0.01786734 = sum of:
    0.01786734 = product of:
      0.03573468 = sum of:
        0.03573468 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03573468 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

0.0021658489 = product of:
  0.015160941 = sum of:
    0.015160941 = product of:
      0.030321881 = sum of:
        0.030321881 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030321881 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18

0.0021658489 = product of:
  0.015160941 = sum of:
    0.015160941 = product of:
      0.030321881 = sum of:
        0.030321881 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030321881 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0021658489 = product of:
  0.015160941 = sum of:
    0.015160941 = product of:
      0.030321881 = sum of:
        0.030321881 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030321881 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.0013799804 = product of:
  0.009659862 = sum of:
    0.009659862 = product of:
      0.019319724 = sum of:
        0.019319724 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 2061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019319724 = score(doc=2061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18058759 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.10698257 = fieldWeight in 2061, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Bei der Diskussion über Zielgruppen und Weltanschauungen waren es ebenfalls inhaltliche Argumente, die Anlaß zur Kritik an deren mangelhafter Repräsentation in den Schlagwortketten lieferten. Die fehlende Verschlagwortung von Klassikern hingegen machte noch auf ein ganz anderes Problem aufmerksam: die kanonisierende Funktion von Bibliothekskatalogen. Gerade weil die Vorstellung einer Universalbibliothek längst verabschiedet ist, tragen Bibliotheken mit ihren beschränkten Beständen und deren inhaltlicher Erschließung mehr denn je zu einer Kanonisierung des Wissens bei. Daß nun gerade die Klassiker mit Hinweis auf ihre Bekanntheit aus diesem Kanon des Sachkatalogs herausgenommen werden, ist vor allem aus inhaltsanalytischer Sicht absurd. Langridge's Befund einer generell unzureichenden Berücksichtigung von inhaltsanalytischen Gesichtspunkten in gängigen angelsächsischen Klassifikationen wie auch seiner häufig konstatierten Inkompetenz von Indexierem kann ich mit Blick auf die RSWK nur zum Teil zustimmen. Das Problem des "engen Schlagworts" und die Behandlung von Klassikern sollten tatsächlich ganz neu überdacht werden, während gerade die Diskussion über Zielgruppen deutlich machte, daß etwas mehr Kulanz bei der Anwendung schon vorhandener Mittel eine erhebliche Verbesserung für das Regelwerk mit sich brächte. Auch die dritte Auflage der RSWK ist meines Erachtens noch deutlich Problemen und Anforderungen traditioneller, physisch verkörperter Kataloge verpflichtet. Die immer noch fakultativ eingeräumte Permutation von Schlagwortketten verdankt sich einem Denken, das sich in Listenkatalogen, aber gewiß nicht in einer Datenbank bewegt. Ebenso scheint das enge Schlagwort und die oft zu knappe Vergabe beispielsweise von Formschlagwörtern (vgl. die Diskussion zu "Einführung" in 4.3.2.3) zumindest zu einem Teil einer Arbeitsökonomie verpflichtet, die noch bei der aufwendigen Pflege von Zettelkatalogen Sinn machte, wo jeder zusätzliche Eintrag ein zeitraubendes Einlegen von mehr Zetteln erforderte. Angesichts der immer größeren Kapazität von Datenbanken, stellt sich die Frage, ob diese immens erweiterten technischen Möglichkeiten nicht auch Konsequenzen für die künftige intellektuelle Erschließung von Dokumenten haben werden. Inzwischen ist es kein Problem mehr, umfangreiche Eintragungen wie etwa Abstracts auch in Bibliothekskatalogen vollständig zu indexieren, wie dies professionelle Datenbankanbieter längst tun oder gar Inhaltsverzeichnisse und Resümees von Arbeiten vollständig einzuscannen. Inwieweit diese Möglichkeiten die traditionelle intellektuelle Erschließung in Form von Schlagwörtern bzw. Notationen von Klassifikationen obsolet machen oder eben nicht, darüber sollten sich die betroffenen Indexierer verständigen."

7.219497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050536473 = sum of:
    0.0050536473 = product of:
      0.010107295 = sum of:
        0.010107295 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010107295 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13061856 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03730009 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05