Search (148 results, page 1 of 8)

0.025373396 = product of:
  0.05074679 = sum of:
    0.05074679 = sum of:
      0.0067464462 = weight(_text_:a in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0067464462 = score(doc=5835,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.044000346 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044000346 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

Type

a

0.021416504 = product of:
  0.042833008 = sum of:
    0.042833008 = sum of:
      0.007632732 = weight(_text_:a in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007632732 = score(doc=5830,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.035200275 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035200275 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = 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)

Abstract

This paper examnines various isues that arise in establishing a theoretical basis for an experimental fiction analysis system. It analyzes the warrants of fiction and of works about fiction. From this analysis, it derives classificatory requirements for a fiction system. Classificatory techniques that may contribute to the specification of data elements in fiction are suggested

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

Type

a

0.01950832 = product of:
  0.03901664 = sum of:
    0.03901664 = sum of:
      0.003816366 = weight(_text_:a in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003816366 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.035200275 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035200275 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

Type

a

0.016749086 = product of:
  0.03349817 = sum of:
    0.03349817 = sum of:
      0.0023852286 = weight(_text_:a in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0023852286 = score(doc=4888,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
      0.031112943 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031112943 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

Type

a

0.016705658 = product of:
  0.033411317 = sum of:
    0.033411317 = sum of:
      0.007011112 = weight(_text_:a in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007011112 = score(doc=5589,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.026400207 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026400207 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

Type

a

0.016400224 = product of:
  0.032800447 = sum of:
    0.032800447 = sum of:
      0.006400241 = weight(_text_:a in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006400241 = score(doc=1416,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
      0.026400207 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026400207 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the preliminary findings of a study that explores mental associations made by novices viewing art images. In a controlled environment, 20 Taiwanese college students responded to the question "What does the painting remind you of?" after viewing each digitized image of 15 oil paintings by a famous Taiwanese artist. Rather than focusing on the representation or interpretation of art, the study attempted to solicit information about how non-experts are stimulated by art. This paper reports on the analysis of participant responses to three of the images, and describes a12-type taxonomy of association emerged from the analysis. While 9 of the types are derived and adapted from facets in the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, three new types - Artistic Influence Association, Reactive Association, and Prototype Association - are discovered. The conclusion briefly discusses both the significance of the findings and the implications for future research.

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

0.0152638005 = sum of:
  0.002304943 = product of:
    0.020744488 = sum of:
      0.020744488 = weight(_text_:p in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020744488 = score(doc=1858,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1776564 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.012958857 = sum of:
    0.0041587884 = weight(_text_:a in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041587884 = score(doc=1858,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03247589 = queryNorm
        0.11106029 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.008800069 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008800069 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03247589 = queryNorm
        0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.
Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.
Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

0.014631241 = product of:
  0.029262481 = sum of:
    0.029262481 = sum of:
      0.0028622746 = weight(_text_:a in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0028622746 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 6525, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6525)
      0.026400207 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026400207 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18

Type

a

0.012062781 = sum of:
  0.008246414 = product of:
    0.07421773 = sum of:
      0.07421773 = weight(_text_:p in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07421773 = score(doc=218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.63560283 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.003816366 = product of:
    0.007632732 = sum of:
      0.007632732 = weight(_text_:a in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007632732 = score(doc=218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.010554933 = sum of:
  0.0072156126 = product of:
    0.06494051 = sum of:
      0.06494051 = weight(_text_:p in 1841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06494051 = score(doc=1841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.55615246 = fieldWeight in 1841, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1841)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0033393202 = product of:
    0.0066786404 = sum of:
      0.0066786404 = weight(_text_:a in 1841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0066786404 = score(doc=1841,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1841, 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=1841)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.009800172 = product of:
  0.019600345 = sum of:
    0.019600345 = sum of:
      0.006400241 = weight(_text_:a in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006400241 = score(doc=2293,freq=40.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
              40.0 = termFreq=40.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.013200103 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013200103 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...
This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.008390035 = sum of:
  0.004123207 = product of:
    0.037108865 = sum of:
      0.037108865 = weight(_text_:p in 1353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037108865 = score(doc=1353,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 1353, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1353)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0042668274 = product of:
    0.008533655 = sum of:
      0.008533655 = weight(_text_:a in 1353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008533655 = score(doc=1353,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 1353, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1353)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wilson argues that the subject of a writing is indetermined, by which he means either it is impossible to say which of two descriptions is 'the' description of the subject of a writing or it is impossible to say if a writing has two subjects rather than one.

Footnote

Nachdruck in: Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Eds.: L.M. Chan et al., S.308-325.

Type

a

0.008357439 = sum of:
  0.004373322 = product of:
    0.039359897 = sum of:
      0.039359897 = weight(_text_:p in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039359897 = score(doc=3651,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.33707932 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0039841174 = product of:
    0.007968235 = sum of:
      0.007968235 = weight(_text_:a in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007968235 = score(doc=3651,freq=62.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.21279141 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
            7.8740077 = tf(freq=62.0), with freq of:
              62.0 = termFreq=62.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

Footnote

Original in: Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Ottawa, 1971. Ed.: Jerzy A Wojceichowski. Pullach: Verlag Dokumentation 1974. S.404-412.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

Type

a

0.0074282773 = sum of:
  0.004123207 = product of:
    0.037108865 = sum of:
      0.037108865 = weight(_text_:p in 2489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037108865 = score(doc=2489,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 2489, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2489)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.00330507 = product of:
    0.00661014 = sum of:
      0.00661014 = weight(_text_:a in 2489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00661014 = score(doc=2489,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2489, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2489)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers the role of pictures in information communication, comparing the way it conveys information with text. Categorises the purposes of images as conveyors of information: the instructional image, the documentary image, the location image, the graphical representation of numbers, the concepts image, the image making the unseen visible, the image as a surrogate for an object or document, the decorative image, the image as a statement, the strong image and the emotional image. Gives examples of how the value of images is being recognised and of how they can be used well

Type

a

0.0069471262 = sum of:
  0.0036078063 = product of:
    0.032470256 = sum of:
      0.032470256 = weight(_text_:p in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032470256 = score(doc=1783,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1783, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1783)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0033393202 = product of:
    0.0066786404 = sum of:
      0.0066786404 = weight(_text_:a in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0066786404 = score(doc=1783,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1783, 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=1783)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines how an analytical framework to describe the contents of images may be extended to deal with time based materials like film and music. A levels of meanings table was developed and used as an indexing template for image retrieval purposes. Develops a concept of democratic indexing which focused on user interpretation. Describes the approach to image or pictorial information retrieval. Extends the approach in relation to fiction

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to papers read at the 1996 Electronic Access to Fiction research seminar at Copenhagen, Denmark

Type

a

0.0069471262 = sum of:
  0.0036078063 = product of:
    0.032470256 = sum of:
      0.032470256 = weight(_text_:p in 5845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032470256 = score(doc=5845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 5845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5845)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0033393202 = product of:
    0.0066786404 = sum of:
      0.0066786404 = weight(_text_:a in 5845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0066786404 = score(doc=5845,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5845, 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=5845)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on a study of children's intentions, purposes, search terms, strategies, successes and breakdowns in accessing fiction. Data was gathered using naturalistic methods of persistent, intensive observation and questioning with children in several school library media centres in the USA, including 997 OPAC transactions. Analyzes the data and highlights aspects of the broader context of the system which may help in development of mechanisms for electronic access

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to papers read at the 1996 Electronic Access to Fiction research seminar at Copenhagen, Denmark

Type

a

0.0063483827 = sum of:
  0.0025770047 = product of:
    0.023193043 = sum of:
      0.023193043 = weight(_text_:p in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023193043 = score(doc=2347,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0037713777 = product of:
    0.0075427555 = sum of:
      0.0075427555 = weight(_text_:a in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075427555 = score(doc=2347,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - If an information retrieval system is going to be of value to the user then it must give meaning to the information which matches the meaning given to it by the user. The meaning given to music varies according to who is interpreting it - the author/composer, the performer, cataloguer or the listener - and this affects how music is organized and retrieved. This paper aims to examine the meaning of music, how meaning is communicated and suggests this may affect music retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Musicology is used to define music and examine its functions leading to a discussion of how music has been organised and described. Various ways of establishing the meaning of music are reviewed, focussing on established musical analysis techniques. It is suggested that traditional methods are of limited use with digitised popular music. A discussion of semiotics and a review of semiotic analysis in western art music leads to a discussion of semiotics of popular music and examines ideas of Middleton, Stefani and Tagg. Findings - Agreeing that music exists when communication takes place, a discussion of selected communication models leads to the proposal of a revised version of Tagg's model, adjusting it to include listener feedback. Originality/value - The outcome of the analysis is a revised version of Tagg's communication model, adapted to reflect user feedback. It is suggested that this revised communication model reflects the way in which meaning is given to music.

Type

a

0.0059931967 = sum of:
  0.0025511044 = product of:
    0.02295994 = sum of:
      0.02295994 = weight(_text_:p in 3648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02295994 = score(doc=3648,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1966296 = fieldWeight in 3648, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3648)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0034420923 = product of:
    0.0068841847 = sum of:
      0.0068841847 = weight(_text_:a in 3648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0068841847 = score(doc=3648,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 3648, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3648)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One knows one is in the presence of "theory" when fundamental questions of a "why" nature are asked. Too often it happens that those involved in the design of bibliographic information systems have no time for brooding. It is thus noteworthy when someone appears an the bibliographic scene who troubles to address, and pursue with philosophic rigor, fundamental questions about the way we organize information. Such a person is Patrick Wilson, formerly philosophy professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and since 1965, an the faculty of the School of Library and Information Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Bibliographic control is the central concept of Wilson's book Two Kinds of Power. It is represented as a kind of power-a power over knowledge. That power is of two kinds: descriptive and exploitive. Descriptive power is the power to retrieve all writings that satisfy some "evaluatively neutral" description, for instance, all writings by Hobbes or all writings an the subject of eternat recurrence. Descriptive power is achieved insofar as the items in our bibliographic universe are fitted with descriptions and these descriptions are syndetically related. Exploitive power is a less-familiar concept, but it is more important since it can be used to explain why we attempt to order our bibliographic universe in the first place. Exploitive power is the power to obtain the best textual means to an end. Unlike the concept of descriptive power, that of exploitive power has a normative aspect to it. Someone possessing such power would understand the goal of all bibliographic activity; that is, he would understand the diversity of user purposes and the relativity of what is valuable; he would be omniscient both as a bibliographer and as a psychologist. Since exploitive power is ever out of reach, descriptive power is used as a substitute or approximation for it. How adequate this approximation is is the subject of Wilson's book. The particular chapter excerpted in this volume deals with the adequacy of subject access methods. Cutter's statement that one of the objects of a library catalog is to show what the library has an a given subject is generally accepted, as though it were obvious what "being an a given subject" means. It is far from obvious. Wilson challenges the underlying presumption that for any document a heading can be found that is coextensive with its subject. This presumption implies that there is such a thing as the (singular) subject of a document and that it can be identified. But, as Wilson Shows in his elaborate explication, the notion of "subject" is essentially indeterminate, with the consequence that we are limited in our attempts to achieve either descriptive or exploitive power.

Footnote

Original in: Wilson, P.: Two kinds of power: an essay on bibliograpical control. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press 1968. S.69-92.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

Type

a

0.0052774665 = sum of:
  0.0036078063 = product of:
    0.032470256 = sum of:
      0.032470256 = weight(_text_:p in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032470256 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0016696601 = product of:
    0.0033393202 = sum of:
      0.0033393202 = weight(_text_:a in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0033393202 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1961, 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=1961)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.93-97.

Type

a

0.0026985784 = product of:
  0.005397157 = sum of:
    0.005397157 = product of:
      0.010794314 = sum of:
        0.010794314 = weight(_text_:a in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010794314 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03247589 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Informatics 9: Meaning: the frontier of informatics: proceedings of a conference. Ed.: K.P. Jones

Type

a