Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Beghtol, C."
  1. Beghtol, C.: ¬The classification of fiction : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (1994) 0.02 
    0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.3, S.165-167 (W. Bies); JASIS 46(1995) no.5, S.389-390 (E.G. Bierbaum); Canadian journal of information and library science 20(1995) nos.3/4, S.52-53 (L. Rees-Potter)
  2. Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity : concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems (1986) 0.02 
    0.016854495 = product of:
  0.03370899 = sum of:
    0.03370899 = product of:
      0.06741798 = sum of:
        0.06741798 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06741798 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.28819257 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.
  3. Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004) 0.02 
    0.016685098 = product of:
  0.033370197 = sum of:
    0.033370197 = product of:
      0.06674039 = sum of:
        0.06674039 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06674039 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.28529608 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.
  4. Beghtol, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval (1992) 0.01 
    0.01215095 = product of:
  0.0243019 = sum of:
    0.0243019 = product of:
      0.0486038 = sum of:
        0.0486038 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0486038 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    5. 8.2006 13:22:08
  5. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.01 
    0.0075943437 = product of:
  0.0151886875 = sum of:
    0.0151886875 = product of:
      0.030377375 = sum of:
        0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377375 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.19-22

Years

Types

Themes