Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012429634 = product of:
  0.024859268 = sum of:
    0.024859268 = product of:
      0.049718536 = sum of:
        0.049718536 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049718536 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, 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=1419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.009177669 = product of:
  0.018355338 = sum of:
    0.018355338 = product of:
      0.036710676 = sum of:
        0.036710676 = weight(_text_:2 in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036710676 = score(doc=2724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.28355807 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study establishes 3 predominant cognitive models of information and the information transfer process manifest in the literature of library and information science, based on a linguistic analysis of phrases incoporating the word 'information' from a random sample of abstracts in the LISA database. The direct communication (DC) and indirect communication (IC) models (drawn from Reddy's frameworks of metalinguistic usage) adopt the perspective of the information system; the information-seeking (IS) model takes the viewpoint of the information user. 2 disturbing findings are presented: 1. core elements of the DC and IC models are more weakly supported by the data than are most of the peripheral elements; and 2. even though the IS model presents the information user's perspective, the data emphasise the role of the information system. These findings suggest respectively that the field lacks a coherent model of information transfer per se and that our model of information retrieval is mechanistic, oblivious to the cognitive models of end users

Source

Journal of documentation. 47(1991) no.2, S.130-148

0.009177669 = product of:
  0.018355338 = sum of:
    0.018355338 = product of:
      0.036710676 = sum of:
        0.036710676 = weight(_text_:2 in 3722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036710676 = score(doc=3722,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.28355807 = fieldWeight in 3722, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents conceptual background. Since topicality is a major factor in relevance, it is crucial to identify the range of relationship types that occur between the topics of user needs and the topics of texts relevant to those needs. Assumes that a single relationship type obtains i.e. that the 2 topics match. Evidence from the analysis of recall failures, citation analysis, and knowledge synthesis suggests otherwise: topical relevance relationships are not limited to topic matching relationships; to the contrary, in certain circumstances they are quite likely not to be matching relationships. Relationships are 1 of the 2 fundamental components of human conceptual systems. Attempts to classify them usually accept a distinction between relationships that occur by virute of the combination of component units (syntagmatic relationships) and relationships that are bulit into the language system (paradigmatic relationships). Given the variety of relationship types previously identified, empirical research is needed to determine the subset that actually account for topical relevance

Date

2. 4.1996 13:18:18

0.009177669 = product of:
  0.018355338 = sum of:
    0.018355338 = product of:
      0.036710676 = sum of:
        0.036710676 = weight(_text_:2 in 2201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036710676 = score(doc=2201,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.28355807 = fieldWeight in 2201, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Claims of bias within the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system in its treatment of indigenous peoples in the U.S. focus on marginalization through ghettoization, historicization, diasporization, and missing topics, such as the status of indigenous peoples as sovereign nations. Investigation into the treatment of indigenous peoples in the U.S. from DDC 16 to DDC 23 reveals that two of the most central concerns, ghettoization and historicization, are not borne out. Diasporization turns out to be a legitimate, but resolvable, concern. The current failure to recognize indigenous peoples as sovereign nations leads to a proposal for a series of expansions in Table 2 for the geographic areas over which indigenous peoples are sovereign; a mismatch between organization by the DDC and by indigenous peoples in the U.S. leads to the supplying of a Manual note table going from names of tribes (a Table 5 concept) to sovereign nations (a Table 2 concept).

Date

2. 9.2014 19:19:40

0.00887831 = product of:
  0.01775662 = sum of:
    0.01775662 = product of:
      0.03551324 = sum of:
        0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03551324 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.008742458 = product of:
  0.017484916 = sum of:
    0.017484916 = product of:
      0.034969833 = sum of:
        0.034969833 = weight(_text_:2 in 2135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034969833 = score(doc=2135,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.27011156 = fieldWeight in 2135, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 8.2008 19:49:47

Source

Knowledge organization. 35(2008) nos.2/3, S.150-159

0.008742458 = product of:
  0.017484916 = sum of:
    0.017484916 = product of:
      0.034969833 = sum of:
        0.034969833 = weight(_text_:2 in 1394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034969833 = score(doc=1394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.27011156 = fieldWeight in 1394, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The main idea of this panel was to create a platform for discussing knowledge organization in the past, present, and future within ISKO. During the panel discussion the following three questions were asked: 1) What is knowledge organization (KO)? 2) What changes do you foresee in the future that will prove to be the most challenging for ISKO? 3) What is your ideal picture of what the ISKO of the future could be? How do we get there? Teilnehmer: Rebecca Green, Claudio Gnoli, Dagobert Soergel, Hans-Peter Ohly, Inegtraut Dahlberg, Joseph Tennis, Vera Dodebei, Rosa San Segundo, Wieslaw Babik, Amos David, Grant Campbell, Laura Ridenour, Jill McTavish.

Date

2. 9.2014 19:19:40

0.0074935355 = product of:
  0.014987071 = sum of:
    0.014987071 = product of:
      0.029974142 = sum of:
        0.029974142 = weight(_text_:2 in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029974142 = score(doc=3724,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2315242 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 4.1996 13:18:18

0.007064973 = product of:
  0.014129946 = sum of:
    0.014129946 = product of:
      0.028259892 = sum of:
        0.028259892 = weight(_text_:2 in 6425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028259892 = score(doc=6425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2182831 = fieldWeight in 6425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper examines the role of attributes within entity-relationship-based conceptual modeling, investigating the interplay between attributes and relationships within (1) data modeling and (2) natural language use. Attribution is found to be an important relationship type. The lack of distinctiveness between attributes and relationships leads to a re-examination of how hierarchy should be treated in both the practice and theory of knowledge organization

0.006244613 = product of:
  0.012489226 = sum of:
    0.012489226 = product of:
      0.024978451 = sum of:
        0.024978451 = weight(_text_:2 in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024978451 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19293682 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Date

2. 9.2014 19:19:40

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The significant differences that exist between the print and digital worlds are sometimes felt to diminish the need for bibliographic description in the electronic world. An analysis of these differences, especially with respect to (1) the control of production and distribution of documents and (2) the need for software intermediation, coupled with a discussion of the functions of bibliographic description in the task of document retrieval argue, however, for an increased role for bibliographic description in the electronic world

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=1150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.2, S.72-83

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information services and use. 17(1997) nos.2/3, S.85-100

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Semantic types provide a level of abstraction over particulars with shared behavior, such as in the participant structure of semantic frames. The paper presents a preliminary investigation, drawing on data from WordNet and FrameNet, into the relationship between hierarchical level and the semantic types that name frame elements (a.k.a. slots). Patterns discovered include: (1) The level of abstraction of a frame is generally matched by the level of abstraction of its frame elements. (2) The roles played by persons tend to be expressed very specifically. (3) Frame elements that mirror the name of the frame tend to be expressed specifically. (4) Some frame participants tend to be expressed at a constant (general) level of abstraction, regardless of the level of abstraction of the overall frame.