Search (732 results, page 3 of 37)

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 2298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=2298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 2298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A classification scheme represents a powerful indexing and retrieval tool. Obsolete terminology and misalignment between widely used systems is key impediment to better use of classification. This paper looks into the issues caused by delay in the revision of UDC class of medical sciences and possible solutions. Following a short description of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) and of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Classification, the author analyses the notations and captions included in 61 class of the UDC Summary. All the classes, subclasses and special auxiliary subdivisions are covered in order to find compatible notations between both schemes, out-of-date vocabulary and out-of-date subdivisions of UDC. As a result of this study and in light of the most recent developments in medical sciences, one subdivision is questioned and several vocabulary expressions included in the caption fields are proposed to be changed or updated.

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the ethical considerations of knowledge organization systems in light of children's perspectives by applying previous literature from Smiraglia's bibliocentrism (2009), Bhaba's third space theory (1994), Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (1978), and Tennis's ethical rationale (2013). Given that there is a lack of attention and consideration in knowledge organization systems for children, it is not absurd to claim that children in the knowledge organization domain tend to be treated as a marginalized user group. Where can we find children's voices in knowledge organization systems? How were these systems designed? The questions regarding the ethical considerations are discussed. This paper contributes to elevate awareness of current problems in knowledge organization systems for children and bring ethical attention to develop knowledge organization systems for children.

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=2394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The need for promoting Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) and Access (MLIA) has become evident, now more than ever, given the increase of the online information produced daily in languages other than English. This study aims to explore users' information needs when searching for information across languages. Specifically, the method of questionnaire was employed to shed light on the Library and Information Science (LIS) undergraduate students' use of search engines, databases, digital libraries when searching as well as their needs for multilingual access. This study contributes in informing the design of MLIR systems by focusing on the reasons and situations under which users would search and use information in multiple languages.

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 2625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=2625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 2625, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article aims to provide an update on the 2009 Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) and on the status of work on the Statement by the IFLA Cataloguing Section. The article begins with a summary of the drafting process of the ICP by the IME ICC, International Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, focusing in particular on the first meeting (IME ICC1) and on the earlier drafts of the 2009 Statement. It then analyzes both the major innovations and the unsatisfactory aspects of the ICP. Finally, it explains and comments on the recent documents by the IFLA Cataloguing Section relating to the ICP, which express their intention to revise the Statement and to verify the convenience of drawing up an international cataloguing code. The latter intention is considered in detail and criticized by the author in the light of the recent publication of the RDA, Resource Description and Access. The article is complemented by an updated bibliography on the ICP.

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 3111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=3111,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3111, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Modern organizations often employ data scientists to improve business processes using diverse sets of data. Researchers and practitioners have both touted the benefits and warned of the drawbacks associated with data science and big data approaches, but few studies investigate how data science is carried out "on the ground." In this paper, we first review the hype and criticisms surrounding data science and big data approaches. We then present the findings of semistructured interviews with 18 data analysts from various industries and organizational roles. Using qualitative coding techniques, we evaluated these interviews in light of the hype and criticisms surrounding data science in the popular discourse. We found that although the data analysts we interviewed were sensitive to both the allure and the potential pitfalls of data science, their motivations and evaluations of their work were more nuanced. We conclude by reflecting on the relationship between data analysts' work and the discourses around data science and big data, suggesting how future research can better account for the everyday practices of this profession.

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 3195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=3195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 3214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=3214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In our previous paper "Gödel's Loophole," we retold the story of Kurt Gödel's discovery in late 1947 of a deep logical contradiction in the United States Constitution. At the time, however, and for many years thereafter, this purported discovery was discounted as nonsense or as highly improbable. Yet this assessment ignores Gödel's Central European background and the dramatic constitutional histories of many Central European states during the interbellum period. Specifically, during his years at the University Vienna (1924-1940) -- first as a student and then as a lecturer -- Gödel would have noticed that every constitutional democracy in Central Europe ended in dictatorship. In this paper, then, we survey the series of "anti-constitutional moments" unfolding in interbellum Europe in order to shed some light on Gödel's later discovery of a logical contradiction in the U.S. Constitution. Simply stated, Gödel's main concern was the theoretical possibility of a "constitutional dictatorship." But how likely was this possibility as a practical matter? It turns out, very likely, if the constitutional history of interbellum Europe is any guide.

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 4125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=4125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 4125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We explore how ideas from infectious disease and genetics can be used to uncover patterns of cultural inheritance and innovation in a corpus of 591 national constitutions spanning 1789-2008. Legal "ideas" are encoded as "topics"-words statistically linked in documents-derived from topic modeling the corpus of constitutions. Using these topics we derive a diffusion network for borrowing from ancestral constitutions back to the US Constitution of 1789 and reveal that constitutions are complex cultural recombinants. We find systematic variation in patterns of borrowing from ancestral texts and "biological"-like behavior in patterns of inheritance, with the distribution of "offspring" arising through a bounded preferential-attachment process. This process leads to a small number of highly innovative (influential) constitutions some of which have yet to have been identified as so in the current literature. Our findings thus shed new light on the critical nodes of the constitution-making network. The constitutional network structure reflects periods of intense constitution creation, and systematic patterns of variation in constitutional lifespan and temporal influence.

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 4369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=4369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 4369, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates the information needs of young first time mothers through a qualitative content analysis of 266 selected posts to a major online discussion group. Our analysis reveals three main categories of need: needs around how to create a positive environment for a child, needs around a mother's relationships and well-being and needs around child development and health. We demonstrate the similarities of this scheme to needs uncovered in other studies and how our classification of needs is more comprehensive than those in previous studies. A critical distinction in our results is between two types of need presentation, distinguishing between situational and informational needs. Situational needs are narrative descriptions of a problematic situations whereas informational needs are need statements with a clear request. Distinguishing between these two types of needs sheds new light on how information needs develop. We conclude with a discussion on the implication of our results for young mothers and information providers.

0.027402842 = product of:
  0.054805685 = sum of:
    0.054805685 = product of:
      0.10961137 = sum of:
        0.10961137 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10961137 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.026769627 = product of:
  0.053539254 = sum of:
    0.053539254 = product of:
      0.16061775 = sum of:
        0.16061775 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16061775 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.02422092 = product of:
  0.04844184 = sum of:
    0.04844184 = product of:
      0.09688368 = sum of:
        0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09688368 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.02422092 = product of:
  0.04844184 = sum of:
    0.04844184 = product of:
      0.09688368 = sum of:
        0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09688368 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.02422092 = product of:
  0.04844184 = sum of:
    0.04844184 = product of:
      0.09688368 = sum of:
        0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09688368 = score(doc=3975,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3975, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:06:44
22. 2.2018 12:13:53

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=3437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3437, 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=3437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and citations of a subset of country histories. The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used. Many of these are from only a few US government Websites or news media and few are to academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social context. Key to this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of texts to counter these assumptions and by so doing create an awareness for a new generation of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of the social context of their production and use.

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 3980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=3980,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3980, 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=3980)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores the relationships between work task and interactive information search behavior. Work task was conceptualized based on a faceted classification of task. An experiment was conducted with six work-task types and simulated work-task situations assigned to 24 participants. The results indicate that users present different behavior patterns to approach useful information for different work tasks: They select information systems to search based on the work tasks at hand, different work tasks motivate different types of search tasks, and different facets controlled in the study play different roles in shaping users' interactive information search behavior. The results provide empirical evidence to support the view that work tasks and search tasks play different roles in a user's interaction with information systems and that work task should be considered as a multifaceted variable. The findings provide a possibility to make predictions of a user's information search behavior from his or her work task, and vice versa. Thus, this study sheds light on task-based information seeking and search, and has implications in adaptive information retrieval (IR) and personalization of IR.

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=4100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4100, 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=4100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.