Search (85 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.04 
    0.03998057 = product of:
  0.07996114 = sum of:
    0.030107405 = weight(_text_:u in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030107405 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.0037332932 = weight(_text_:a in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037332932 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.046120446 = product of:
      0.06918067 = sum of:
        0.034746617 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034746617 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.03443405 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443405 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
    Type
    a
  2. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The nature of information science and its core concepts (2014) 0.02 
    0.020221189 = product of:
  0.060663562 = sum of:
    0.051612694 = weight(_text_:u in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051612694 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
    0.009050869 = weight(_text_:a in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009050869 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Theories of information, communication and knowledge : a multidisciplinary approach. Eds.: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan u. T.M. Dousa
    Type
    a
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998) 0.02 
    0.016139992 = product of:
  0.048419975 = sum of:
    0.042020045 = weight(_text_:h in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042020045 = score(doc=403,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
    0.0063999314 = weight(_text_:a in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063999314 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Erwiderung auf die Rezension des gleichbetitelten Buches des Autors durch G. Wersig in nfd 49(1998) H.1
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126
    Type
    a
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Fundamentals of knowledge organization (2003) 0.02 
    0.016114619 = product of:
  0.048343856 = sum of:
    0.04301058 = weight(_text_:u in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04301058 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
    0.0053332755 = weight(_text_:a in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053332755 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso
    Type
    a
  5. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Understandings of language and cognition : implications for classification research (1994) 0.01 
    0.014043786 = product of:
  0.042131357 = sum of:
    0.03466477 = weight(_text_:h in 8884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03466477 = score(doc=8884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.38429362 = fieldWeight in 8884, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8884)
    0.0074665863 = weight(_text_:a in 8884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074665863 = score(doc=8884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 8884, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8884)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Type
    a
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Knowledge organization = Information organization? (2012) 0.01 
    0.010449617 = product of:
  0.03134885 = sum of:
    0.025806347 = weight(_text_:u in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025806347 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
    0.005542503 = weight(_text_:a in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005542503 = score(doc=639,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  7. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Bradford's law of scattering : ambiguities in the concept of "subject" (2005) 0.01 
    0.009345732 = product of:
  0.028037194 = sum of:
    0.02150529 = weight(_text_:u in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02150529 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
    0.0065319026 = weight(_text_:a in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065319026 = score(doc=157,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.
    Source
    Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven
    Type
    a
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and subject representation : an activity-theoretical approach to information science (1997) 0.01 
    0.009136652 = product of:
  0.027409954 = sum of:
    0.021010023 = weight(_text_:h in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021010023 = score(doc=6963,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
    0.0063999314 = weight(_text_:a in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063999314 = score(doc=6963,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Information science has for a long time been drawing on the knowledge produced in psychology and related fields. This is reasonable, for the central issue in information science concerns individual users navigating information spaces such as libraries, databases, and the Internet, Thus, informations seeking is the fundamental problem in information science, while other problems, such as document representation, are subordinate. This book proposes a general theory of information seeking as a theoretical basis for information science
    Content
    Introduction - information seeking and subject representation - subject searching and subject representation data - subject analysis and knowledge organization - the concept of subject or subject matter and basic epistemological positions - methodological consequences for information science - science, discipline, and subject field as a framework for information seeking - information needs and cognitive and scientific development
    Footnote
    Rez. in: nfd 49(1998) H.1, S.59-60 (G. Wersig), Erwiderung des Autors darauf in nfd: 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126; JASIS 49(1998) no.11, S.1043 (C. Chen); College and research libraries 59(1998) no.3, S.287-288 (P. Wilson)
  9. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and knowledge organization : the presentation of a new book (1997) 0.01 
    0.008825682 = product of:
  0.026477046 = sum of:
    0.017332384 = weight(_text_:h in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017332384 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
    0.009144663 = weight(_text_:a in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009144663 = score(doc=310,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation
    Type
    a
  10. Schöpfel, J.; Farace, D.; Prost, H.; Zane, A.; Hjoerland, B.: Data documents (2021) 0.01 
    0.00708542 = product of:
  0.02125626 = sum of:
    0.014856329 = weight(_text_:h in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014856329 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.0063999314 = weight(_text_:a in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063999314 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This article presents and discusses different kinds of data documents, including data sets, data studies, data papers and data journals. It provides descriptive and bibliometric data on different kinds of data documents and discusses the theoretical and philosophical problems by classifying documents according to the DIKW model (data documents, information documents, knowl­edge documents and wisdom documents). Data documents are, on the one hand, an established category today, even with its own data citation index (DCI). On the other hand, data documents have blurred boundaries in relation to other kinds of documents and seem sometimes to be understood from the problematic philosophical assumption that a datum can be understood as "a single, fixed truth, valid for everyone, everywhere, at all times".
    Type
    a
  11. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Toward a new horizon in information science : domain analysis (1995) 0.01 
    0.0066408888 = product of:
  0.019922666 = sum of:
    0.012380276 = weight(_text_:h in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012380276 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
    0.0075423913 = weight(_text_:a in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075423913 = score(doc=2273,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases
    Type
    a
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Domain analysis (2017) 0.01 
    0.006423574 = product of:
  0.019270722 = sum of:
    0.006033913 = weight(_text_:a in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006033913 = score(doc=3852,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
    0.013236808 = product of:
      0.03971042 = sum of:
        0.03971042 = weight(_text_:29 in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03971042 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The domain-analytic approach to knowledge organization (KO) (and to the broader field of library and information science, LIS) is outlined. The article reviews the discussions and proposals on the definition of domains, and provides an example of a domain-analytic study in the field of art studies. Varieties of domain analysis as well as criticism and controversies are presented and discussed.
    Date
    29. 9.2017 19:09:20
    Type
    a
  13. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01 
    0.0063148676 = product of:
  0.018944602 = sum of:
    0.0074665863 = weight(_text_:a in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074665863 = score(doc=5237,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.011478017 = product of:
      0.03443405 = sum of:
        0.03443405 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443405 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
    Type
    a
  14. Hjoerland, B.; Albrechtsen, H.: ¬An analysis of some trends in classification research (1999) 0.01 
    0.006304059 = product of:
  0.018912178 = sum of:
    0.012380276 = weight(_text_:h in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012380276 = score(doc=6391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
    0.0065319026 = weight(_text_:a in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065319026 = score(doc=6391,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge
    Type
    a
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020) 0.01 
    0.0061143534 = product of:
  0.01834306 = sum of:
    0.012380276 = weight(_text_:h in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012380276 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09020387 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
    0.005962784 = weight(_text_:a in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005962784 = score(doc=24,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
    Content
    Part of a special issue: The politics of knowledge organization, Part 2; guest editors: Robert D. Montoya and Gregory H. Leazer. DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461.
    Type
    a
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content ... and relevance (2001) 0.01 
    0.0060161534 = product of:
  0.01804846 = sum of:
    0.0064662537 = weight(_text_:a in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064662537 = score(doc=6032,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
    0.011582206 = product of:
      0.034746617 = sum of:
        0.034746617 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034746617 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined
    Date
    29. 9.2001 14:03:14
    Type
    a
  17. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01 
    0.0058921943 = product of:
  0.017676583 = sum of:
    0.007838283 = weight(_text_:a in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007838283 = score(doc=4359,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.0098383 = product of:
      0.0295149 = sum of:
        0.0295149 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0295149 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
    Type
    a
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.01 
    0.005084615 = product of:
  0.015253845 = sum of:
    0.007055261 = weight(_text_:a in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007055261 = score(doc=1096,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.0081985835 = product of:
      0.02459575 = sum of:
        0.02459575 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02459575 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
    Type
    a
  19. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.00 
    0.0045106197 = product of:
  0.013531859 = sum of:
    0.0053332755 = weight(_text_:a in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053332755 = score(doc=1398,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.0081985835 = product of:
      0.02459575 = sum of:
        0.02459575 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02459575 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    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
    Type
    a
  20. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.00 
    0.0042724456 = product of:
  0.012817336 = sum of:
    0.0046187527 = weight(_text_:a in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046187527 = score(doc=629,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.0081985835 = product of:
      0.02459575 = sum of:
        0.02459575 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02459575 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 84
  • dk 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 82
  • el 4
  • d 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications