Search (231 results, page 12 of 12)

0.0076857996 = product of:
  0.015371599 = sum of:
    0.015371599 = product of:
      0.030743198 = sum of:
        0.030743198 = weight(_text_:22 in 1637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743198 = score(doc=1637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 8(1983), S.22-29

0.0076857996 = product of:
  0.015371599 = sum of:
    0.015371599 = product of:
      0.030743198 = sum of:
        0.030743198 = weight(_text_:22 in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743198 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Inspel. 22(1988), S.121-145

0.0076857996 = product of:
  0.015371599 = sum of:
    0.015371599 = product of:
      0.030743198 = sum of:
        0.030743198 = weight(_text_:22 in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743198 = score(doc=468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0076391385 = product of:
  0.015278277 = sum of:
    0.015278277 = product of:
      0.030556554 = sum of:
        0.030556554 = weight(_text_:p in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030556554 = score(doc=3630,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.22471954 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.0076391385 = product of:
  0.015278277 = sum of:
    0.015278277 = product of:
      0.030556554 = sum of:
        0.030556554 = weight(_text_:p in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030556554 = score(doc=3633,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.22471954 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.0066842465 = product of:
  0.013368493 = sum of:
    0.013368493 = product of:
      0.026736986 = sum of:
        0.026736986 = weight(_text_:p in 3648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026736986 = score(doc=3648,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.1966296 = fieldWeight in 3648, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Original in: Wilson, P.: Two kinds of power: an essay on bibliograpical control. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press 1968. S.69-92.

0.0064048334 = product of:
  0.012809667 = sum of:
    0.012809667 = product of:
      0.025619334 = sum of:
        0.025619334 = weight(_text_:22 in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025619334 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3113, 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=3113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 1.2005 14:10:22

0.005729354 = product of:
  0.011458708 = sum of:
    0.011458708 = product of:
      0.022917416 = sum of:
        0.022917416 = weight(_text_:p in 3642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022917416 = score(doc=3642,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.16853966 = fieldWeight in 3642, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic fallacy of mechanised information retrieval systems seems to be the often unconscious but apparently implied assumption that the machine can inject meaning into a group of juxtaposed terms although no methods of conceptual analysis and re-synthesis have been programmed (p. 203). As an example, he suggests considering the slight but vital differences in the meaning of the word "of" in selected examples: swarm of bees house of the mayor House of Lords spectrum of the sun basket of fish meeting of councillors cooking of meat book of the film Farradane's distinctive contribution is his matrix of basic relationships. The rows concern time and memory, in degree of happenstance: coincidentally, occasionally, or always. The columns represent degree of the "powers of discrimination": occurring together, linked by common elements only, or standing alone. To make these relationships easily managed, he used symbols for each of the nine kinds - "symbols found an every typewriter": /O (Theta) /* /; /= /+ /( /) /_ /: Farradane has maintained his basic insights to the present day. Though he has gone an to do other kinds of research in classification, his work indicates that he still believes that "the primary task ... is that of establishing satisfactory and enduring principles of subject analysis, or classification" (p. 208).

0.0047264756 = product of:
  0.009452951 = sum of:
    0.009452951 = product of:
      0.018905902 = sum of:
        0.018905902 = weight(_text_:p in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018905902 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.13903812 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.

0.0047264756 = product of:
  0.009452951 = sum of:
    0.009452951 = product of:
      0.018905902 = sum of:
        0.018905902 = weight(_text_:p in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018905902 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.13903812 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A major contribution of cognitive psychology has been the conceptualization of knowledge as memory representations in the form of scripts, frames, or schemata (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Shank & Abelson, 1977; Spiro, 1980). Schemata are defined as "packets of integrated information on various topics" (Hunt, 1993 , p.530). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, cognitive psychologists were interested in describing the nature of these packets of information. Spiro (1980 ) demonstrated the constructive and complex nature of schemata and highlighted contextual factors--including tasks, texts, and situational contexts--that influenced how knowledge is organized in memory. Recently, cognitive researchers have come to view knowledge and schemata as multidimensional (Jetton, Rupley, & Willson, 1995). For example, researchers have differentiated novice and experts' knowledge structures in subject-matter domains (Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1981; Voss, Greene, Post, & Penner, 1983). Researchers have examined discourse knowledge--knowledge about language and how it works (McCutchen, 1986). Another aspect of knowledge that has been extensively studied is strategic knowledge--knowledge about procedures for accomplishing a goal or task (Alexander & Judy, 1988; J. R. Anderson, 1983a; Prawat, 1989).

0.004483383 = product of:
  0.008966766 = sum of:
    0.008966766 = product of:
      0.017933533 = sum of:
        0.017933533 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017933533 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.