Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

0.06484437 = product of:
  0.12968874 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Pages

S.19-22

0.05187072 = product of:
  0.20748287 = sum of:
    0.20748287 = weight(_text_:fields in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20748287 = score(doc=4250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65650237 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports the results of a survey of 23 published classifications taken from a variety of subject fields

0.05187072 = product of:
  0.20748287 = sum of:
    0.20748287 = weight(_text_:fields in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20748287 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65650237 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.04492136 = product of:
  0.17968544 = sum of:
    0.17968544 = weight(_text_:fields in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17968544 = score(doc=47,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5685477 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based

0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, 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

0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considering fields as diverse as the history of science, Internet studies, border studies, and coalition politics, the article gives an historical overview of how the knowledge around queer phenomena has been structured, tabulated, and spacialized: the hazards, coercive and productive qualities, as well as queer's paradoxical relationship as both resistant to and reliant on categories, classification, and knowledge structures. In the process, the article also considers the development of Western hierarchical knowledge structures in relation to societal power dynamics, proximity, and space.

0.03025792 = product of:
  0.12103168 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Integrative level classification (ILC) is a research project being developed since 2004 by some members of the Italian chapter of ISKO, also involving cooperation with other researchers. Anyone interested is welcome to contact us at: ilc@mate.unipv.it. Aim of the project is to test application of the theory of integrative levels to knowledge organization (KO). This implies a naturalistic-ontological approach to KO, which is obviously not the only possible approach - actually it even looks to be unfashionable nowadays, although it agrees with current trends towards interdisciplinarity and interrelation between many research fields.

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.02593536 = product of:
  0.10374144 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.

0.024452092 = product of:
  0.09780837 = sum of:
    0.09780837 = weight(_text_:fields in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09780837 = score(doc=3637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.3094782 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the early 1960s, the Classification Research Group in London (q.v.) had reached the point in its experimentation with faceted classification systems where some kind of amalgamation of individual schemes was needed. They sought a unifying principle or set of principles that would provide a basis for a general system. The individual faceted schemes would not merge; what was central to one subject was fringe to another, but the fringes did not coalesce. In looking farther afield, they discovered the theory of "integrative levels" set forth by James K. Feibleman, Chairman and Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University until 1969 and author of forty-five books and more than 175 articles in various fields of philosophy. Feibleman's research concerned the development of the sciences considered in terms of an organizing principle. In the physical sciences, one Gould begin with subparticles and work up to atoms, molecules, and molecular assemblages, interpolating the biological equivalents. Feibleman separates the various levels by use of a "no return" device: "each level organizes the level or levels below it plus one emergent quality." The process is not reversible without loss of identity. A dog, in his system, is no longer a dog when it has been run over by a car; the smashed parts cannot be put together again to function as a dog. The theory of integrative levels is an interesting one. The levels from subparticles to clusters of galaxies or from nuclei to organisms are relatively clearly defined. A discipline, such as any of the ones comprising the "hard sciences," is made up of integrative levels. Research is cumulative so that scholars are ready to contribute when very young. Classification in these fields can make good use of the theory of integrative levels-in fact it should do so. It would appear that the method is more difficult to apply in the social sciences and humanities. This appearance may, however, be superficial. Almost all past happenings are irrevocable; one cannot recall the French Revolution and re-fight it. Any academic discipline that moves an over time does not usually return to an earlier position, even when there are schools of thought involved. Philosophy may have "neo-" this or that, but the subsequent new is not the same as the previous new. One has only to look at the various kinds of neo-Platonists that arise from time to time to realize that. Physical science recognizes a series of paradigms in changing its methodology over time and a similar situation may also turn out to be true in cognitive science." If this should turn out to be the case, integrative levels would probably have a part in that field as weIl.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=3021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress is a federal institution that occupies a critical space where medical, social science, political, literary, and other discourses are collected, arranged, and disseminated to Congress and the public. LC plays a vital part in discipline creation and maintenance, as it actively reproduces specific discourses, while silencing others, such as those from the humanities, social sciences, and the general public. Alternatively, social tagging seems to disregard conventions of disciplinarity and allows much more diversity of representations. Tagging may provide important insight for organizing materials in research libraries, as choices between single disciplines are no longer necessary and voices from various fields and audiences can name resources using their own terms, whether they prefer medical/technical jargon or everyday words. As the academy moves more toward interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary studies and aims to find the intersections across political, social, scientific, and cultural phenomena, the implications and effects of library organization based on classes and subjects needs to be interrogated.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

0.017295016 = product of:
  0.069180064 = sum of:
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.017295016 = product of:
  0.069180064 = sum of:
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.017295016 = product of:
  0.069180064 = sum of:
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.017295016 = product of:
  0.069180064 = sum of:
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.1-22

0.01729024 = product of:
  0.06916096 = sum of:
    0.06916096 = weight(_text_:fields in 3783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06916096 = score(doc=3783,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.21883413 = fieldWeight in 3783, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3783)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Different approaches to the classification of a knowledge field include empiristic, rationalistic, historistic, and pragmatic methods. This paper demonstrates how these different methids have been applied to the classification of psychology. An etymological apporach is insufficient to define the subject matter of psychology, because other terms can be used to describe the same domain. To define the subject matter of psychology from the point of view of its formal establishment as a science and academic discipline (in Leipzig, 1879) it is also insufficient because this was done in specific historical circumstances, which narrowed the subject matter to physiologically-related issues. When defining the subject area of a scientific field it is necessary to consider how different ontological and epistemological views have made their influences. A subject area and the approaches by which this subject area has been studied cannot be separated from each other without tracing their mutual historical interactions. The classification of a subject field is theory-laden and thus cannot be neutral or ahistorical. If classification research can claim to have a method that is more general than the study of concrete developments in the single knowledge fields the key is to be found in the general epistemological theories. It is shown how basic epistemological assumptions have formed the different approaches to psychology during the 20th century. The progress in the understanding of basic philosophical questions is decisive both for the development of a knowledge field and as the point of departure of classification. The theoretical principles developed in this paper are applied in a brief analysis of some concrete classification systems, including the one used by PsycINFO / Psychologcal Abstracts. The role of classification in modern information retrieval is also briefly discussed