-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2013)
0.09
0.085754246 = sum of:
0.030946817 = product of:
0.09284045 = sum of:
0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09284045 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05480743 = product of:
0.10961486 = sum of:
0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10961486 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.
-
Keshet, Y.: Classification systems in the light of sociology of knowledge (2011)
0.05
0.047464628 = product of:
0.094929256 = sum of:
0.094929256 = product of:
0.18985851 = sum of:
0.18985851 = weight(_text_:light in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18985851 = score(doc=4493,freq=6.0), product of:
0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Moss, R.: Categories and relations : Origins of two classification theories (1964)
0.04
0.043845944 = product of:
0.08769189 = sum of:
0.08769189 = product of:
0.17538378 = sum of:
0.17538378 = weight(_text_:light in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17538378 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.51047 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The resemblances between the categories of Aristotle and those of Ranganathan are shown. These categories are examined in the light of criticism made by Bertrand Russell and are shown to have no validity. Similar comparisons are made between the relations of Huma and Farradane. Farradane's work is a return to Hume, who is generally acknowledged as one of the founders of the British school of empirical philosophy which continues to Russell and beyond. In Russell's work lies the most promising line of development for information classification and indexing
-
Kleineberg, M.: Integrative levels (2017)
0.04
0.038365204 = product of:
0.07673041 = sum of:
0.07673041 = product of:
0.15346082 = sum of:
0.15346082 = weight(_text_:light in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15346082 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article provides a historical overview and conceptual clarification of the idea of integrative levels as an organizing principle. It will be demonstrated that this concept has found different articulations (e.g., levels of integration, levels of organization, levels of complexity, levels of granularity, nested hierarchy, specification hierarchy, hierarchical integration, progressive integration, holarchy, superformation, self-organization cycles) and widespread applications based on various, often unrelated theoretical and disciplinary backgrounds. In order to determine its role in the field of knowledge organization, some common misconceptions and major criticisms will be reconsidered in light of a broader multidisciplinary context. In particular, it will be shown how this organizing principle has been fruitfully applied to human-related research areas such as psychology, social sciences, or humanities in terms of integrative levels of knowing.
-
Jacob, E.K.: ¬The everyday world of work : two approaches to the investigation of classification in context (2001)
0.03
0.027403714 = product of:
0.05480743 = sum of:
0.05480743 = product of:
0.10961486 = sum of:
0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10961486 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- One major aspect of T.D. Wilson's research has been his insistence on situating the investigation of information behaviour within the context of its occurrence - within the everyday world of work. The significance of this approach is reviewed in light of the notion of embodied cognition that characterises the evolving theoretical episteme in cognitive science research. Embodied cognition employs complex external props such as stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings to reduce the cognitive burden on the individual and to augment human problem-solving activities. The cognitive function of the classification scheme is described as exemplifying both stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings. Two different but complementary approaches to the investigation of situated cognition are presented: cognition-as-scaffolding and cognition-as-infrastructure. Classification-as-scaffolding views the classification scheme as a knowledge storage device supporting and promoting cognitive economy. Classification-as-infrastructure views the classification system as a social convention that, when integrated with technological structures and organisational practices, supports knowledge management work. Both approaches are shown to build upon and extend Wilson's contention that research is most productive when it attends to the social and organisational contexts of cognitive activity by focusing on the everyday world of work.
-
Tennis, J.T.: Never facets alone : the evolving thought and persistent problems in Ranganathan's theories of classification (2017)
0.03
0.027403714 = product of:
0.05480743 = sum of:
0.05480743 = product of:
0.10961486 = sum of:
0.10961486 = weight(_text_:light in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10961486 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999)
0.02
0.024180222 = product of:
0.048360445 = sum of:
0.048360445 = product of:
0.09672089 = sum of:
0.09672089 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09672089 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999)
0.02
0.024180222 = product of:
0.048360445 = sum of:
0.048360445 = product of:
0.09672089 = sum of:
0.09672089 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09672089 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.02
0.024180222 = product of:
0.048360445 = sum of:
0.048360445 = product of:
0.09672089 = sum of:
0.09672089 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09672089 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
-
Parrochia, D.: Mathematical theory of classification (2018)
0.02
0.021882704 = product of:
0.043765407 = sum of:
0.043765407 = product of:
0.13129622 = sum of:
0.13129622 = weight(_text_:objects in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13129622 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- One of the main topics of scientific research, classification is the operation consisting of distributing objects in classes or groups which are, in general, less numerous than them. From Antiquity to the Classical Age, it has a long history where philosophers (Aristotle), and natural scientists (Linnaeus), took a great part. But from the nineteenth century (with the growth of chemistry and information science) and the twentieth century (with the arrival of mathematical models and computer science), mathematics (especially theory of orders and theory of graphs or hypergraphs) allows us to compute all the possible partitions, chains of partitions, covers, hypergraphs or systems of classes we can construct on a domain. In spite of these advances, most of classifications are still based on the evaluation of ressemblances between objects that constitute the empirical data. However, all these classifications remain, for technical and epistemological reasons we detail below, very unstable ones. We lack a real algebra of classifications, which could explain their properties and the relations existing between them. Though the aim of a general theory of classifications is surely a wishful thought, some recent conjecture gives the hope that the existence of a metaclassification (or classification of all classification schemes) is possible
-
Zackland, M.; Fontaine, D.: Systematic building of conceptual classification systems with C-KAT (1996)
0.02
0.02166277 = product of:
0.04332554 = sum of:
0.04332554 = product of:
0.12997662 = sum of:
0.12997662 = weight(_text_:objects in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12997662 = score(doc=5145,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 5145, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5145)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- C-KAT is a method and a tool which supports the design of feature oriented classification systems for knowlegde based systems. It uses a specialized Heuristic Classification conceptual model named 'classification by structural shift' which sees the classification process as the matching of different classifications of the same set of objects or situations organized around different structural principles. To manage the complexity induced by the cross-product, C-KAT supports the use of a leastcommittment strategy which applies in a context of constraint-directed reasoning. Presents this method using an example from the field of industrial fire insurance
-
Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multidimensional knowledge structures (2003)
0.02
0.018568087 = product of:
0.037136175 = sum of:
0.037136175 = product of:
0.111408524 = sum of:
0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111408524 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.
-
Tennis, J.T.: Foundational, first-order, and second-order classification theory (2015)
0.02
0.018568087 = product of:
0.037136175 = sum of:
0.037136175 = product of:
0.111408524 = sum of:
0.111408524 = weight(_text_:objects in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111408524 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Both basic and applied research on the construction, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of classification schemes is called classification theory. If we employ Ritzer's metatheoretical method of analysis on the over one-hundred year-old body of literature, we can se categories of theory emerge. This paper looks at one particular part of knowledge organization work, namely classification theory, and asks 1) what are the contours of this intellectual space, and, 2) what have we produced in the theoretical reflection on constructing, implementing, and evaluating classification schemes? The preliminary findings from this work are that classification theory can be separated into three kinds: foundational classification theory, first-order classification theory, and second-order classification theory, each with its own concerns and objects of study.
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.02
0.016120149 = product of:
0.032240298 = sum of:
0.032240298 = product of:
0.064480595 = sum of:
0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064480595 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.02
0.016120149 = product of:
0.032240298 = sum of:
0.032240298 = product of:
0.064480595 = sum of:
0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064480595 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
-
Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006)
0.02
0.016120149 = product of:
0.032240298 = sum of:
0.032240298 = product of:
0.064480595 = sum of:
0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064480595 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 5.2007 22:19:35
-
Lorenz, B.: Zur Theorie und Terminologie der bibliothekarischen Klassifikation (2018)
0.02
0.016120149 = product of:
0.032240298 = sum of:
0.032240298 = product of:
0.064480595 = sum of:
0.064480595 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064480595 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.1-22
-
Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multi-dimensional knowledge structures (2001)
0.02
0.015473409 = product of:
0.030946817 = sum of:
0.030946817 = product of:
0.09284045 = sum of:
0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09284045 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Howarth, L.C.: Creating pathways to memory : enhancing life histories through category clusters (2008)
0.02
0.015473409 = product of:
0.030946817 = sum of:
0.030946817 = product of:
0.09284045 = sum of:
0.09284045 = weight(_text_:objects in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09284045 = score(doc=2281,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- For individuals whose memory and language are intact, making sense of unfamiliar information or objects is a process of matching what is unknown, to what is known through previous learning or experience. The unfamiliar is linked to clusters or categories of the familiar, identifying what is "like" or "nearly like" and excluding all others (De Mey 1982). Most commonly, these are categories on which there is general agreement, sometimes collocated under established terms, labels, or shared naming devices. Classification systems are built on the basis of shared understandings of human knowledge and culture. When memory and/or language are impaired, how does such contextualizing and categorizing occur? Since perception is individual, can a person with cognitive impairment "make sense" of information, an object, a situation, using alternative modes of expression that are less or not language-dependent? This paper reports on preliminary results from a pilot study undertaken as part of exploratory mixed methods research examining the sense-making, sorting, categorization, and recall strategies of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) resulting from early stage dementia.
-
Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996)
0.01
0.01410513 = product of:
0.02821026 = sum of:
0.02821026 = product of:
0.05642052 = sum of:
0.05642052 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05642052 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.059490006 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
