Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12142134 = product of:
  0.182132 = sum of:
    0.16516559 = weight(_text_:interest in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16516559 = score(doc=3626,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.6587042 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
    0.016966416 = product of:
      0.03393283 = sum of:
        0.03393283 = weight(_text_:classification in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03393283 = score(doc=3626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and common characteristics in the knowledge organization literature for more than half a century. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. The use of reader-interest classification related terms and references drastically declined since 1995, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day such as those of implementation of BISAC in American public libraries. The present paper attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

0.09579128 = product of:
  0.14368692 = sum of:
    0.11919801 = weight(_text_:interest in 5266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11919801 = score(doc=5266,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.47537887 = fieldWeight in 5266, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5266)
    0.024488911 = product of:
      0.048977822 = sum of:
        0.048977822 = weight(_text_:classification in 5266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048977822 = score(doc=5266,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 5266, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Through their work as instructors in a master of library science program, the authors observed a sharp increase in students' desire to adopt the reader-interest classification approach of genrefication for their school libraries' fiction collections. In order to better understand this trend, the researchers interviewed seven school librarians regarding their motivations for genrefying their libraries' fiction collections; the challenges they encountered during or after the genrefication process; and any benefits they perceived as having resulted in the implementation of genrefication. The data suggest that the librarians' interests in genrefication stem mostly from the lack of time they have to help individual students find materials, and the lack of time students are given out of the instructional day to explore the libraries' fiction collections. The participants felt that reclassifying the library's fiction collection by genre gave students more ownership of the fiction collection and allowed them to find ma-terials that genuinely interested them. The significant challenges the librarians faced in the reorganization process speak to challenges regarding the ways in which librarians attempt to provide access to diverse materials for all patrons.

Object

Reader Interest Classification

0.08289318 = product of:
  0.12433976 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
    0.027993156 = product of:
      0.05598631 = sum of:
        0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05598631 = score(doc=1952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.6, S.624-654

0.056190483 = product of:
  0.16857144 = sum of:
    0.16857144 = weight(_text_:interest in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16857144 = score(doc=3030,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.6722872 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate fiction readers' interest criteria when selecting novels in library catalogs for various search tasks. Design/methodology/approach - The data of the book selection behavior from 80 genuine fiction readers were collected using recorded interviews and conversations. The data were qualitatively analyzed. Reuter's categorization of the components of aesthetic relevance has contributed to the construction of interest dimensions. Findings - A five-dimension categorization of interest criteria is presented based on fiction readers' interpretations of the influential factors in fiction book selection in different search tasks. The findings revealed that readers apply the identified interest criteria in a flexible and multiphase way depending to the search task and the system used. The findings showed a context-related pattern in readers' fiction book selections. A combination of readers' search capacities, "behind the eyes" knowledge, affective factors and a well-functioning interaction with a system used results in a successful book selection. Originality/value - A five-dimension categorization of adult fiction readers' interest criteria was created based on their search behaviors in library catalogs. The results provide a systematic step toward a comprehensive understanding of readers' fiction book selection in digital environments.

0.018470693 = product of:
  0.05541208 = sum of:
    0.05541208 = product of:
      0.11082416 = sum of:
        0.11082416 = weight(_text_:classification in 5164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11082416 = score(doc=5164,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.6895092 = fieldWeight in 5164, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article explores the topic of fiction classification. The first section attempts to define the field, discussing fiction classification, its schemes, objectivity, aboutness, and shelf classification. The second section suggests three new ideas building upon the foundation of the first: a faceted multi-warrant classification, controlled term affective dimension searching, and the design of a user-oriented recommendation-based system.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.4, S.317-329

0.011544183 = product of:
  0.03463255 = sum of:
    0.03463255 = product of:
      0.0692651 = sum of:
        0.0692651 = weight(_text_:classification in 5315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0692651 = score(doc=5315,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 5315, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5315)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Fiction content analysis and retrieval are interesting specific topics for two major reasons: 1) the extensive use of fictional works; and, 2) the multimodality and interpretational nature of fiction. The primary challenge in the analysis of fictional content is that there is no single meaning to be analysed; the analysis is an ongoing process involving an interaction between the text produced by author, the reader and the society in which the interaction occurs. Furthermore, different audiences have specific needs to be taken into consideration. This article explores the topic of fiction knowledge organization, including both classification and indexing. It provides a broad and analytical overview of the literature as well as describing several experimental approaches and developmental projects for the analysis of fictional content. Traditional fiction indexing has been mainly based on the factual aspects of the work; this has then been expanded to handle different aspects of the fictional work. There have been attempts made to develop vocabularies for fiction indexing. All the major classification schemes use the genre and language/culture of fictional works when subdividing fictional works into subclasses. The evolution of shelf classification of fiction and the appearance of different types of digital tools have revolutionized the classification of fiction, making it possible to integrate both indexing and classification of fictional works.

0.011310944 = product of:
  0.03393283 = sum of:
    0.03393283 = product of:
      0.06786566 = sum of:
        0.06786566 = weight(_text_:classification in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06786566 = score(doc=4720,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4720, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This chapter considers fiction retrieval research and initiatives, providing an overview of some of the approaches that have been developed. In particular, it describes two recent approaches to fiction retrieval that have made use of theoretical concepts drawn from literary theory. Fiction is an interesting information domain because it includes documents that serve two purposes, which are reading for pleasure and scholarly study (Beghtol, 1994), but fiction retrieval has not always focused on both aspects. In the 19th century, the approach was to treat fiction from a knowledge perspective within general classification schemes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) contain classes for literature, with the main subdivision in each case being the language in which it is written. Further subdivision is possible based on literary form, historical period or the works of an individual author (Riesthuis, 1997).

0.009425786 = product of:
  0.028277358 = sum of:
    0.028277358 = product of:
      0.056554716 = sum of:
        0.056554716 = weight(_text_:classification in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056554716 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al

0.009331052 = product of:
  0.027993156 = sum of:
    0.027993156 = product of:
      0.05598631 = sum of:
        0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05598631 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article describes multiple experiments in text mining at Northern Illinois University that were undertaken to improve the efficiency and accuracy of cataloging. It focuses narrowly on subject analysis of dime novels, a format of inexpensive fiction that was popular in the United States between 1860 and 1915. NIU holds more than 55,000 dime novels in its collections, which it is in the process of comprehensively digitizing. Classification, keyword extraction, named-entity recognition, clustering, and topic modeling are discussed as means of assigning subject headings to improve their discoverability by researchers and to increase the productivity of digitization workflows.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 57(2019) no.5, S.315-336

0.0065980507 = product of:
  0.019794151 = sum of:
    0.019794151 = product of:
      0.039588302 = sum of:
        0.039588302 = weight(_text_:classification in 1964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039588302 = score(doc=1964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1964, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.2, S.156-180

0.005655472 = product of:
  0.016966416 = sum of:
    0.016966416 = product of:
      0.03393283 = sum of:
        0.03393283 = weight(_text_:classification in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03393283 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.62-68

0.004712893 = product of:
  0.014138679 = sum of:
    0.014138679 = product of:
      0.028277358 = sum of:
        0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028277358 = score(doc=4548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The subject description of novels in library catalogues is traditionally limited to the classification number with no description of the story. On the other hand, enthusiastic readers describe novels by tags or reviews in Web services. The purpose of this paper is to analyse readers' descriptions of novels and suggest an enhancement of the catalogue record which would be useful to the readers. Design/methodology/approach - The original research involved a content analysis of tags and reviews written by users in the online bookstore Amazon.com, the online reader advisory service LibraryThing, and the reading promotion project Primorci beremo. The results were compared to previously published results. Findings - The characteristics that most frequently elicit comments by readers are: the names of the creators and literary characters, geographic names and the titles of works, the time frame in which the story takes place, and the literary genre. Their evaluation of a novel was expressed with an opinion, an analysis, or a professional review. Awards were mentioned, and readers often also expressed their personal experience with the novel. They connected the novel with a sequel or series, with otherwise related novels, movies, etc. Often, pictures of the cover and other factual data were included. Research limitations/implications - Research was limited to readers' experiences and descriptions of literary works written in prose. Practical implications - It is suggested that the time frame, genre and awards received should be included in the functional requirements models. Originality/value - Original research was conducted over a longer period of time. The results were re-evaluated and compared to previously published results from studies by different researchers.

0.0032990254 = product of:
  0.009897076 = sum of:
    0.009897076 = product of:
      0.019794151 = sum of:
        0.019794151 = weight(_text_:classification in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019794151 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Library Director Jarmo Saarti introduced a wide or ideal model for fiction in literature in his dissertation, published in 1999. It introduces those aspects that should be included in an information system for fiction. Such aspects include literary prose and its intertextual references to other works, the writer, readers' and critics' receptions of the work as well as a researcher's view. It is also important to note how libraries approach a literary work by means of inventory, classification and content description. The most ambiguous of the aspects relates to that context in cultural history, which the work reflects and is a part of. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Since the model consists of several components which are not found in present library information systems and cannot be implemented by them, a new way had to be found to produce, save, process and present fiction-related metadata. The Semantic Computing Research Group of Aalto University has developed several Semantic Web services for use in the field of culture, so cooperation with it and the use of Semantic Web tools were a natural starting point for the construction of the new service. Kirjasampo will be based on the Semantic Web RDF data model. The model enables a flexible linking of metadata derived from different sources, and it can be used to build a Semantic Web that can be approached contextually from different angles. Findings - The "semantically enriched" ideal model for fiction has hence been realised, at least to some extent: Kirjasampo supports literature-related metadata that is more varied than earlier and aims to account for different contexts within literature and connections with regard to other cultural phenomena. It also includes contemporary reviews of works and, as such, readers' receptions as well. Modern readers can share their views on works, once the user interface of the server is completed. It will include several features from the Kirjasto 2.0-application, which enables the evaluation, description and recommendations of works. The service should be online by the end of Spring 2011. Research limitations/implications - The project involves novel collaboration between a public library and a computer science research unit, and utilises a novel approach to the description of fiction. Practical implications - The system encourages user participation in the description of fiction and is of practical benefit to librarians in understanding both how fiction is organised and how users interpret the same. Originality/value - Upon completion, the service will be the first Finnish information system for libraries built with the tools of the Semantic Web which offers a completely new user environment and application for data produced by libraries. It also strives to create a new model for saving and producing data, available to both library professionals and readers. The aim is to save, accumulate and distribute literary knowledge, experiences and silent information.