Search (1433 results, page 1 of 72)

0.17328326 = sum of:
  0.124142356 = product of:
    0.49656942 = sum of:
      0.49656942 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.49656942 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44177356 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.049140904 = product of:
    0.09828181 = sum of:
      0.09828181 = weight(_text_:i in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09828181 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

Footnote

Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde Vorgelegt der Philosophischen Fakultät I der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

0.12258664 = sum of:
  0.031086113 = product of:
    0.12434445 = sum of:
      0.12434445 = weight(_text_:authors in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12434445 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.09150052 = sum of:
    0.049140904 = weight(_text_:i in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049140904 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05210816 = queryNorm
        0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
    0.042359617 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042359617 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05210816 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)

Abstract

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

0.10108191 = sum of:
  0.07241638 = product of:
    0.28966552 = sum of:
      0.28966552 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28966552 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44177356 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028665528 = product of:
    0.057331055 = sum of:
      0.057331055 = weight(_text_:i in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057331055 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.09150052 = product of:
  0.18300104 = sum of:
    0.18300104 = sum of:
      0.09828181 = weight(_text_:i in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09828181 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 5629, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5629)
      0.08471923 = weight(_text_:22 in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08471923 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5629, 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=5629)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2019-02-index.php.

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.2, S.163-166

0.091206744 = sum of:
  0.014956313 = product of:
    0.059825253 = sum of:
      0.059825253 = weight(_text_:authors in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059825253 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.076250434 = sum of:
    0.04095075 = weight(_text_:i in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04095075 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05210816 = queryNorm
        0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.03529968 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03529968 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05210816 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)

Abstract

In the keynote paper for the 12th International ISKO Conference in Mysore I discussed the dynamicity of the domain of knowledge organization from the perspective of ongoing domain analyses. Metaanalysis of a series of studies shows that knowledge organization is a strong, scientific community, with a distinct extension that now embraces the search for interoperability, and with intension that shifts along two continuums, one of which is methodological (or epistemological) and ranges from empirical experimental methods to humanistic narrative methods, while the other is more contextual and ranges from concept theory to applied KOS. These elements seem to remain core in knowledge organization as a domain over time (Smiraglia 2012). Another interesting finding is the degree to which the intension along that theory-application continuum is stretched by papers presented at regional ISKO chapter conferences. Since 2006 it has been the policy of this journal to offer to publish the leading papers from any peer-reviewed regional ISKO conference. The papers are selected by conference organizers and forwarded to Knowledge Organization for publication. By analyzing the papers separately we are able to see both the presence of the domain's core internationally and the constant tug and pull on the intension as authors bring new ideas and new research to regional conferences. This editorial, then, summarizes papers from regional conferences that have appeared in Knowledge Organization in 2011 and 2012.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:09:49

0.08880784 = product of:
  0.17761569 = sum of:
    0.17761569 = sum of:
      0.12819614 = weight(_text_:i in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12819614 = score(doc=1296,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.65227187 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.049419552 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049419552 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

0.08204083 = product of:
  0.16408166 = sum of:
    0.16408166 = sum of:
      0.11466211 = weight(_text_:i in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11466211 = score(doc=2546,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
      0.049419552 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049419552 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As we move toward implementing RDA: Resource Description and Access, I have been pondering how we might manage the transition to new cataloging rules effectively. I was a practicing cataloger when Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., was implemented and remember it as a traumatic process. The published literature that I found focused on the impact of the then-new rules on specific formats and genres, but no one seems to have addressed the process of implementation and what type of training worked well (or did not). After a bit of sleuthing, I found a pertinent presentation by Arlene G. Taylor, which she graciously agreed to repurpose as this guest editorial.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.08068254 = sum of:
  0.051725984 = product of:
    0.20690393 = sum of:
      0.20690393 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20690393 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44177356 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028956555 = product of:
    0.05791311 = sum of:
      0.05791311 = weight(_text_:i in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05791311 = score(doc=855,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Converting UDC numbers manually to a complex format such as the one mentioned above is an unrealistic expectation; supporting building these representations, as far as possible automatically, is a well-founded requirement. An additional advantage of this approach is that the existing records could also be processed and converted. In my dissertation I would like to prove also that it is possible to design and implement an algorithm that is able to convert pre-coordinated UDC numbers into the introduced format by identifying all their elements and revealing their whole syntactic structure as well. In my dissertation I will discuss a feasible way of building a UDC-specific XML schema for describing the most detailed and complicated UDC numbers (containing not only the common auxiliary signs and numbers, but also the different types of special auxiliaries). The schema definition is available online at: http://piros.udc-interpreter.hu#xsd. The primary goal of my research is to prove that it is possible to support building, retrieving, and analyzing UDC numbers without compromises, by taking the whole syntactic richness of the scheme by storing the UDC numbers reserving the meaning of pre-coordination. The research has also included the implementation of a software that parses UDC classmarks attended to prove that such solution can be applied automatically without any additional effort or even retrospectively on existing collections.

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>

0.07845242 = sum of:
  0.03589515 = product of:
    0.1435806 = sum of:
      0.1435806 = weight(_text_:authors in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1435806 = score(doc=1539,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.042557273 = product of:
    0.085114546 = sum of:
      0.085114546 = weight(_text_:i in 1539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.085114546 = score(doc=1539,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.43306938 = fieldWeight in 1539, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1539)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper provides a better understanding of the implications of researchers' social networks in bibliographic references. Using a set of chemistry papers and conducting interviews with their authors (n = 32), I characterize the type of relation the author has with the authors of the references contained in his/her paper (n = 3,623). I show that citation relationships do not always involve underlying personal exchanges and that unknown references are an essential component, revealing segmentations in scientific groups. The relationships implied by references are of various strengths and origins. Several inclusive social circles are then identified: co-authors, close acquaintances, colleagues, invisible colleges, peers, contactables, and strangers. I conclude that publication is a device that contributes to a relatively stable distribution among the various social circles that structure scientific sociability.

0.076250434 = product of:
  0.15250087 = sum of:
    0.15250087 = sum of:
      0.0819015 = weight(_text_:i in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0819015 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
      0.07059936 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07059936 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.06147801 = sum of:
  0.020938838 = product of:
    0.08375535 = sum of:
      0.08375535 = weight(_text_:authors in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08375535 = score(doc=2265,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.040539175 = product of:
    0.08107835 = sum of:
      0.08107835 = weight(_text_:i in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08107835 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent article by McKay et al. on browsing (2019) provides a valuable addition to the empirical literature of information science on this topic, and I read the descriptions of the various browsing cases with interest. However, the authors refer to my article on browsing (Bates, 2007) in ways that do not make sense to me and which do not at all conform to what I actually said.

0.061000347 = product of:
  0.122000694 = sum of:
    0.122000694 = sum of:
      0.0655212 = weight(_text_:i in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0655212 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.05647949 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05647949 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.061000347 = product of:
  0.122000694 = sum of:
    0.122000694 = sum of:
      0.0655212 = weight(_text_:i in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0655212 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=291)
      0.05647949 = weight(_text_:22 in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05647949 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 291, 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=291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 9.2010 11:15:22

0.061000347 = product of:
  0.122000694 = sum of:
    0.122000694 = sum of:
      0.0655212 = weight(_text_:i in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0655212 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.05647949 = weight(_text_:22 in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05647949 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1430, 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=1430)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To "classify" in Library and Information Sciences (LIS) usually involves an engagement with formally established classification systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification. In this research I suggest an alternative path for LIS scholars - one that considers the application of LIS theories about classification to the investigation of everyday life "classification" processes and technologies.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.06011957 = sum of:
  0.010469419 = product of:
    0.041877676 = sum of:
      0.041877676 = weight(_text_:authors in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041877676 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04965015 = product of:
    0.0993003 = sum of:
      0.0993003 = weight(_text_:i in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0993003 = score(doc=1077,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.5052476 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

0.059952684 = sum of:
  0.042302843 = product of:
    0.16921137 = sum of:
      0.16921137 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16921137 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01764984 = product of:
    0.03529968 = sum of:
      0.03529968 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529968 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.0566907 = sum of:
  0.0239301 = product of:
    0.0957204 = sum of:
      0.0957204 = weight(_text_:authors in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0957204 = score(doc=1895,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0327606 = product of:
    0.0655212 = sum of:
      0.0655212 = weight(_text_:i in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0655212 = score(doc=1895,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Physics-Astronomy-Mathematics Division Vendor Update Session at the Special Libraries Association 2010 Annual Conference in New Orleans had a panel of four representatives of organizations involved in author authority work. In my presentation I described the involvement of Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet in author authority work, from the hand work done with file cards in 1940 through the present day work combining computer systems and hand work. This paper is an expanded version of my comments.

0.05592768 = product of:
  0.11185536 = sum of:
    0.11185536 = sum of:
      0.06949574 = weight(_text_:i in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06949574 = score(doc=1406,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 1406, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1406)
      0.042359617 = weight(_text_:22 in 1406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042359617 = score(doc=1406,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1406, 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=1406)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the paper I argue that metaphors widely used in presenting knowledge organization, despite of their methodological correctness, play an ambiguous role. They are mostly conceived and used as models of information/knowledge organization such as library documents, databases and internet tools and devices. But due to their suggestive power and pervasive role, they can also obscure the structure of such organization. One can expect explanatory (descriptive) benefits from spatial (e.g. terrestrial or aquatic) metaphors comparing modes of organizing and accessing knowledge to oceans, pathways networks or even rhizomes. But mapping or metaphorically presenting cognitive undertakings such as searching, browsing or retrieving information/knowledge can obscure their actual essence. As held by the cognitive theory of metaphor (Lakoff, Johnson, Ritchie), certain aspects of complex phenomena (i.e. knowledge organization) are repeatedly obscured and hidden. I argue that metaphors containing probability concepts, although not immediately intuitive or comprehensible, are more fruitful effective in mapping knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.055883743 = sum of:
  0.020938838 = product of:
    0.08375535 = sum of:
      0.08375535 = weight(_text_:authors in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08375535 = score(doc=1400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.034944903 = product of:
    0.069889806 = sum of:
      0.069889806 = weight(_text_:22 in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.069889806 = score(doc=1400,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses and illustrates through examples how meaningful or deep learning can be supported through well-structured presentation of material, through giving learners schemas they can use to organize knowledge in their minds, and through helping learners to understand knowledge organization principles they can use to construct their own schemas. It is a call to all authors, educators and information designers to pay attention to meaningful presentation that expresses the internal structure of the domain and facilitates the learner's assimilation of concepts and their relationships.

Pages

S.22-32

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.05533448 = sum of:
  0.025381705 = product of:
    0.10152682 = sum of:
      0.10152682 = weight(_text_:authors in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10152682 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.029952776 = product of:
    0.05990555 = sum of:
      0.05990555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05990555 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.