Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Nicolaisen, J."
  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Nicolaisen, J.; Hjoerland, B.: ¬A rejoinder to Beghtol (2004) (2004) 0.00 
    0.0038316585 = product of:
  0.011494976 = sum of:
    0.011494976 = weight(_text_:a in 3006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011494976 = score(doc=3006,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3006, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3006)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen. In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63 sowie: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.
    Type
    a
  2. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Bradford's law of scattering : ambiguities in the concept of "subject" (2005) 0.00 
    0.0027093915 = product of:
  0.008128175 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=157,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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(1/3)
    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.
    Type
    a
  3. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004) 0.00 
    0.002473325 = product of:
  0.0074199745 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=3023,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3023, 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=3023)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.
    Type
    a
  4. Nicolaisen, J.; Hjoerland, B.: Practical potentials of Bradford's law : a critical examination of the received view (2007) 0.00 
    0.0018771215 = product of:
  0.0056313644 = sum of:
    0.0056313644 = weight(_text_:a in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0056313644 = score(doc=830,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a

Themes