Search (73 results, page 2 of 4)

0.00930435 = product of:
  0.0372174 = sum of:
    0.0372174 = weight(_text_:science in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0372174 = score(doc=615,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the article, the author aims to clarify some of the issues surrounding the discussion regarding the usefulness of a substantive classification theory in information science (IS) by means of a broad perspective. By utilizing a concrete example from the High Accuracy Retrieval from Documents (HARD) track of a Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), the author suggests that the bag of words approach to information retrieval (IR) and techniques such as relevance feedback have significant limitations in expressing and resolving complex user information needs. He argues that a comprehensive analysis of information needs involves explicating often-implicit assumptions made by the authors of scholarly documents, as well as everyday texts such as news articles. He also argues that progress in IS can be furthered by developing general theories that are applicable to multiple domains. The concrete example of application of the domain-analytic approach to subject analysis in IS to the aesthetic evaluation of works of information arts is used to support this argument.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.1977-1987

0.008953114 = product of:
  0.035812456 = sum of:
    0.035812456 = weight(_text_:science in 6335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035812456 = score(doc=6335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 6335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6335)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library and information science. 1997, no.38, S.1-21

0.008863131 = product of:
  0.035452522 = sum of:
    0.035452522 = weight(_text_:science in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035452522 = score(doc=6991,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 6991, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6991)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Stresses that S.R. Ranganathan was truly a great scholar, who made rich contribution to different aspects of library and information science, but is better known for his work in the field of library classification. discusses his distinctive contributions to classification such as normative principles, 3 plane model of work, freely faceted classification (involving facet analysis and the synthetic principle), postulational approach, fundamental categories and certain notational devices like the sector device, group notation device, emptying digit device and seminal mnemonic device. Regards these as seminal ideas forming the basis of his theory of library classification. Considers 7th ed. of the Colon Classification as the best example of the application of theses ideas

Source

Journal of library and information science. 17(1992) no.2, S.115-127

0.008863131 = product of:
  0.035452522 = sum of:
    0.035452522 = weight(_text_:science in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035452522 = score(doc=851,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Comparison between grounded theory (a qualitative social science research methodology of Glaser and Strauss) and facet classification (Ranganathan)

Content

This article compares the qualitative method of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan's construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work with that of Ranganathan(1950).

0.0083772335 = product of:
  0.033508934 = sum of:
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

One general principle in the construction of classification schemes is that of grouping phenomena to be classified according to their shared origin in evolution or history (phylogenesis). In general schemes, this idea has been applied by several classificationists in identifying a series of integrative levels, each originated from the previous ones, and using them as the main classes. In special schemes, common origin is a key principle in many domains: examples are given from the classification of climates, of organisms, and of musical instruments. Experience from these domains, however, suggests that using common origin alone, as done in cladistic taxonomy, can produce weird results, like having birds as a subclass of reptiles; while the most satisfying classifications use a well balanced mix of common origin and similarity. It is discussed how this could be applied to the development of a general classification of phenomena in an emergentist perspective, and how the resulting classification tree could be structured. Charles Bennett's notion of logical depth appears to be a promising conceptual tool for this purpose.

0.0077536246 = product of:
  0.031014498 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=1893,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible.

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation. 17(1980), S.73-82

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Existing classification systems require constant expansion to accomodate new subject fields, while subject indexing techniques fail to display the relationship of subjects. Relational databases are currently being developed which will guide users through the differing levels of subjects, using the 'cartography of science'. Such developments will enable librarians to play a more interactive role in information retrieval and will have far-reaching consequences on the design of subject-indexing systems

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=2760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=275)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1350-1359

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=5518,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Race and Ethnicity in Library and Information Science: An Update'.

0.006981028 = product of:
  0.027924111 = sum of:
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.006981028 = product of:
  0.027924111 = sum of:
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=4845,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This paper is based on a thesis of the same title, completed as part of an MA in Library and Information Studies at University College London in 2009, and available at http://62.32.98.6/elibsql2uk_Z10300UK_Documents/Catalogued_PDFs/ Some_issues_in_the_classification_of_zoology.PDF. Thanks are due to Vanda Broughton, who supervised the MA thesis; and to Diane Tough of the Natural History Museum, London and Ann Sylph of the Zoological Society of London, who both provided valuable insights into the classification of zoological literature.

0.006981028 = product of:
  0.027924111 = sum of:
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Contents: 1. Introduction: Kinds of Division; 2. The Basics of Logical Division; 3. History; 4. Formalization; 5. The Rules; 6. The Status of the Rules; 7. The Process of Logical Division; 8. Conclusion

0.0063308077 = product of:
  0.02532323 = sum of:
    0.02532323 = weight(_text_:science in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02532323 = score(doc=4493,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Classification is an important process in making sense of the world, and has a pronounced social dimension. This paper aims to compare folksonomy, a new social classification system currently being developed on the web, with conventional taxonomy in the light of theoretical sociological and anthropological approaches. The co-existence of these two types of classification system raises the questions: Will and should taxonomies be hybridized with folksonomies? What can each of these systems contribute to information-searching processes, and how can the sociology of knowledge provide an answer to these questions? This paper aims also to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - This paper is situated at the meeting point of the sociology of knowledge, epistemology and information science and aims at examining systems of classification in the light of both classical theory and current late-modern sociological and anthropological approaches. Findings - Using theoretical approaches current in the sociology of science and knowledge, the paper envisages two divergent possible outcomes. Originality/value - While concentrating on classifications systems, this paper addresses the more general social issue of what we know and how it is known. The concept of hybrid knowledge is suggested in order to illuminate the epistemological basis of late-modern knowledge being constructed by hybridizing contradictory modern knowledge categories, such as the subjective with the objective and the social with the natural. Integrating tree-like taxonomies with folksonomies or, in other words, generating a naturalized structural order of objective relations with social, subjective classification systems, can create a vast range of hybrid knowledge.

0.006329265 = product of:
  0.02531706 = sum of:
    0.02531706 = product of:
      0.05063412 = sum of:
        0.05063412 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063412 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.006329265 = product of:
  0.02531706 = sum of:
    0.02531706 = product of:
      0.05063412 = sum of:
        0.05063412 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063412 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23

0.006329265 = product of:
  0.02531706 = sum of:
    0.02531706 = product of:
      0.05063412 = sum of:
        0.05063412 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063412 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.1-22

0.0062671797 = product of:
  0.025068719 = sum of:
    0.025068719 = weight(_text_:science in 6583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025068719 = score(doc=6583,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 6583, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6583)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annals of Japan Society of Library Science. 42(1996) no.2, S.99-110

0.0062671797 = product of:
  0.025068719 = sum of:
    0.025068719 = weight(_text_:science in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025068719 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2