Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.003515392 = product of:
  0.007030784 = sum of:
    0.007030784 = product of:
      0.014061568 = sum of:
        0.014061568 = weight(_text_:a in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014061568 = score(doc=674,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=726,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 726, 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=726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=760,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems, even traditional ones, such as the Universal Decimal Classification, have been studied to improve the retrieval of information online, although the potential of using knowledge structures in the user interface has not yet been widespread. Objective: This study presents a mapping of scientific production on information retrieval methodologies, which make use of the Universal Decimal Classification. Methodology: Systematic Literature Review, conducted in two stages, with a selection of 44 publications, resulting in the time interval from 1964 to 2017, whose categories analyzed were: most productive authors, languages of publications, types of document, year of publication, most cited work, major impact journal, and thematic categories covered in the publications. Results: A total of nine more productive authors and co-authors were found; predominance of the English language (42 publications); works published in the format of journal articles (33); and highlight to the year 2007 (eight publications). In addition, it was identified that the most cited work was by Mcilwaine (1997), with 61 citations, and the journal Extensions & Corrections to the UDC was the one with the largest number of publications, in addition to the incidence of the theme Universal Automation linked to a thesaurus for information retrieval, present in 19 works. Conclusions: Shortage of studies that explore the potential of the Decimal Classification, especially in Brazilian literature, which highlights the need for further study on the topic, involving research at the national and international levels.

Footnote

Englischer Titel: Use of the Universal Decimal Classification for the recoery of information in digital environments: a systematic review of literature.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=464,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 464, 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=464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years, different cultural institutions have made efforts to spread culture through the construction of a unique search interface that integrates their digital objects and facilitates data retrieval for lay users. However, integrating cultural data is not a trivial task; therefore, this work performs a systematic literature review on data aggregation workflows, in order to answer five questions: What are the projects? What are the planned steps? Which technologies are used? Are the steps performed manually, automatically, or semi-automatically? Which perform semantic search? The searches were carried out in three databases: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Scopus and Web of Science. In Q01, 12 projects were selected. In Q02, 9 stages were identified: Harvesting, Ingestion, Mapping, Indexing, Storing, Monitoring, Enriching, Displaying, and Publishing LOD. In Q03, 19 different technologies were found it. In Q04, we identified that most of the solutions are semi-automatic and, in Q05, that most of them perform a semantic search. The analysis of the workflows allowed us to identify that there is no consensus regarding the stages, their nomenclatures, and technologies, besides presenting superficial discussions. But it allowed to identify the main steps for the implementation of the aggregation of cultural data.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=5841,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5841, 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=5841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose To provide a close, detailed analysis of the frequency, nature, and depth of visible use of Michel Foucault's works by library and information science/studies (LIS) scholars. Design/methodology/approach The study conducted extensive full-text searches in a large number of electronically available LIS journal databases to find citations of Foucault's works, then examined each cited article to evaluate the nature and depth of use. Findings Most uses of Foucault are brief or in passing. In-depth explorations of Foucault's works are comparatively rare and relatively little-used by other LIS scholars. Yet the relatively brief uses of Foucault encompass a wide array of different topics spread across a wide spectrum of LIS journal literature. Research limitations/implications The study was limited to articles from particular relatively prominent LIS journals. Results might vary if different journals or non-journal literature were studied. More sophisticated bibliometric techniques might reveal different relative performance among journals and might better test, confirm, or reject various patterns and relationships found here. Other research approaches, such as discourse analysis, social network analysis, or scholar interviews, might reveal patterns of use and influence not visible in this literature sample. Originality/value This intensive study of both quality and quantity of citations may challenge some existing assumptions regarding citation analysis, plus illuminating Foucault scholarship. It also indicates possible problems for future application of artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to similar depth-of-use studies.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=5929,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A systematic literature review is carried out, detailing the research topics and the methods and techniques used in information science in studies published between 2000 and 2019. The results obtained allow us to affirm that there is no consensus on the core topics of information science, as these evolve and change dynamically in relation to other disciplines, and with the dominant social and cultural contexts. With regard to the research methods and techniques, it can be stated that they have mostly been adopted from social sciences, with the addition of numerical methods, especially in the fields of bibliometric and scientometric research.

Type

a

0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=606,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose With ready access to search engines and social media platforms, the way people find image information has evolved and diversified in the past two decades. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the literature on image information needs and behaviors. Design/methodology/approach Following an eight-step procedure for conducting systematic literature reviews, the paper presents an analysis of peer-reviewed work on image information needs and behaviors, with publications ranging from the years 1997 to 2019. Findings Application of the inclusion criteria led to 69 peer-reviewed works. These works were synthesized according to the following categories: research methods, users targeted, image types, identified needs, search behaviors and search obstacles. The reviewed studies show that people seek and use images for multiple reasons, including entertainment, illustration, aesthetic appreciation, knowledge construction, engagement, inspiration and social interactions. The reviewed studies also report that common strategies for image searches include keyword searches with short queries, browsing, specialization and reformulation. Observed trends suggest common deployment of query analysis, survey questionnaires and undergraduate participant pools to research image information needs and behavior. Originality/value At this point, after more than two decades of image information needs research, a holistic systematic review of the literature was long overdue. The way users find image information has evolved and diversified due to technological developments in image retrieval. By synthesizing this burgeoning field into specific foci, this systematic literature review provides a foundation for future empirical investigation. With this foundation set, the paper then pinpoints key research gaps to investigate, particularly the influence of user expertise, a need for more diverse population samples, a dearth of qualitative data, new search features and information and visual literacies instruction.

Type

a

0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=607,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified. Design/methodology/approach The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson. Findings Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered. Research limitations/implications The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective. Practical implications The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information. Social implications Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems. Originality/value The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 5840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=5840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a