Search (1023 results, page 1 of 52)

0.15004618 = sum of:
  0.032155484 = product of:
    0.12862194 = sum of:
      0.12862194 = weight(_text_:authors in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12862194 = score(doc=818,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.56985176 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.1178907 = product of:
    0.2357814 = sum of:
      0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2357814 = score(doc=818,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a citation analysis of indexing research in the ISKO Proceedings. Understanding that there are different traditions of research into indexing, we look for evidence of this in the citing and cited authors. Three areas of cited and citing authors surface, after applying Price's elitism analysis, each roughly corresponding to geographic distributions.

0.14472291 = product of:
  0.28944582 = sum of:
    0.28944582 = sum of:
      0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2357814 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.0536644 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0536644 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 637, 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=637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:54:49

0.14472291 = product of:
  0.28944582 = sum of:
    0.28944582 = sum of:
      0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2357814 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
      0.0536644 = weight(_text_:22 in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0536644 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 6.2013 18:33:22

0.12663254 = product of:
  0.25326508 = sum of:
    0.25326508 = sum of:
      0.20630874 = weight(_text_:j.t in 1426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20630874 = score(doc=1426,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.567688 = fieldWeight in 1426, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1426)
      0.046956353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046956353 = score(doc=1426,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1426, 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=1426)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.12304956 = sum of:
  0.01989519 = product of:
    0.07958076 = sum of:
      0.07958076 = weight(_text_:authors in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07958076 = score(doc=1887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1887, 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=1887)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.10315437 = product of:
    0.20630874 = sum of:
      0.20630874 = weight(_text_:j.t in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20630874 = score(doc=1887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.567688 = fieldWeight in 1887, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1887)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article summarizes published documents on metadata provided by Google for books scanned as part of the Google Book Search (GBS) project and provides suggestions for improvement. The faulty, misleading, and confusing metadata in current Google records can pose potentially serious problems for users of GBS. Google admits that it took data, which proved to be inaccurate, from many sources and is attempting to correct errors. Some argue that metadata is not needed with keyword searching; but optical character recognition (OCR) errors, synonym control, and materials in foreign languages make reliable metadata a requirement for academic researchers. The authors recommend that users should be able to submit error reports to Google to correct faulty metadata.

0.108542174 = product of:
  0.21708435 = sum of:
    0.21708435 = sum of:
      0.17683604 = weight(_text_:j.t in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17683604 = score(doc=3821,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.48658967 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
      0.0402483 = weight(_text_:22 in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0402483 = score(doc=3821,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3821, 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=3821)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2017 13:02:22

0.105471045 = sum of:
  0.017053021 = product of:
    0.068212084 = sum of:
      0.068212084 = weight(_text_:authors in 1068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068212084 = score(doc=1068,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1068, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1068)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08841802 = product of:
    0.17683604 = sum of:
      0.17683604 = weight(_text_:j.t in 1068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17683604 = score(doc=1068,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.48658967 = fieldWeight in 1068, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1068)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A starting point for contributing to the greater good is to examine and interrogate existing knowledge organization practices that do harm, whether that harm is intentional or accidental, or an inherent and unavoidable evil. As part of the transition movement, the authors propose to inventory the manifestations and implications of the production of suffering by knowledge organization systems through constructing a taxonomy of harm. Theoretical underpinnings guide ontological commitment, as well as the recognition of the problem of harm in knowledge organization systems. The taxonomy of harm will be organized around three main questions: what happens?, who participates?, and who is affected and how? The aim is to heighten awareness of the violence that classifications and naming practices carry, to unearth some of the social conditions and motivations that contribute to and are reinforced by knowledge organization systems, and to advocate for intentional and ethical knowledge organization practices to achieve a minimal level of harm.

0.090451814 = product of:
  0.18090363 = sum of:
    0.18090363 = sum of:
      0.14736338 = weight(_text_:j.t in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14736338 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.4054914 = fieldWeight in 1346, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1346)
      0.033540253 = weight(_text_:22 in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033540253 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1346, 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=1346)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:57:34

0.08789254 = sum of:
  0.014210851 = product of:
    0.056843404 = sum of:
      0.056843404 = weight(_text_:authors in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056843404 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5640, 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=5640)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07368169 = product of:
    0.14736338 = sum of:
      0.14736338 = weight(_text_:j.t in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14736338 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.4054914 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.

0.058977388 = product of:
  0.117954776 = sum of:
    0.117954776 = product of:
      0.4718191 = sum of:
        0.4718191 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4718191 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41975442 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.05894535 = product of:
  0.1178907 = sum of:
    0.1178907 = product of:
      0.2357814 = sum of:
        0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2357814 = score(doc=275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05894535 = product of:
  0.1178907 = sum of:
    0.1178907 = product of:
      0.2357814 = sum of:
        0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 1888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2357814 = score(doc=1888,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 1888, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05894535 = product of:
  0.1178907 = sum of:
    0.1178907 = product of:
      0.2357814 = sum of:
        0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2357814 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05894535 = product of:
  0.1178907 = sum of:
    0.1178907 = product of:
      0.2357814 = sum of:
        0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2357814 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05894535 = product of:
  0.1178907 = sum of:
    0.1178907 = product of:
      0.2357814 = sum of:
        0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2357814 = score(doc=4779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05894535 = product of:
  0.1178907 = sum of:
    0.1178907 = product of:
      0.2357814 = sum of:
        0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 4889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2357814 = score(doc=4889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 4889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05894535 = product of:
  0.1178907 = sum of:
    0.1178907 = product of:
      0.2357814 = sum of:
        0.2357814 = weight(_text_:j.t in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2357814 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36341923 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.64878625 = fieldWeight in 5264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3401785 = idf(docFreq=77, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.056964487 = sum of:
  0.04019436 = product of:
    0.16077743 = sum of:
      0.16077743 = weight(_text_:authors in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16077743 = score(doc=4150,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = 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)
  0.016770126 = product of:
    0.033540253 = sum of:
      0.033540253 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033540253 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = 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

0.053098343 = sum of:
  0.01989519 = product of:
    0.07958076 = sum of:
      0.07958076 = weight(_text_:authors in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07958076 = score(doc=1400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = 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)
  0.033203155 = product of:
    0.06640631 = sum of:
      0.06640631 = weight(_text_:22 in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06640631 = score(doc=1400,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = 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

0.05257646 = sum of:
  0.024116613 = product of:
    0.09646645 = sum of:
      0.09646645 = weight(_text_:authors in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09646645 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = 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)
  0.028459849 = product of:
    0.056919698 = sum of:
      0.056919698 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056919698 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = 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.