Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010245154 = product of:
  0.020490307 = sum of:
    0.020490307 = product of:
      0.040980615 = sum of:
        0.040980615 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040980615 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15131445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-36

0.008781561 = product of:
  0.017563121 = sum of:
    0.017563121 = product of:
      0.035126243 = sum of:
        0.035126243 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035126243 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15131445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0073179672 = product of:
  0.0146359345 = sum of:
    0.0146359345 = product of:
      0.029271869 = sum of:
        0.029271869 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029271869 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15131445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0073179672 = product of:
  0.0146359345 = sum of:
    0.0146359345 = product of:
      0.029271869 = sum of:
        0.029271869 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029271869 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15131445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.005953131 = product of:
  0.011906262 = sum of:
    0.011906262 = product of:
      0.05953131 = sum of:
        0.05953131 = weight(_text_:authors in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05953131 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.005953131 = product of:
  0.011906262 = sum of:
    0.011906262 = product of:
      0.05953131 = sum of:
        0.05953131 = weight(_text_:authors in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05953131 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses definitions of index and indexing and provides a systematic overview of kinds of indexes. Theories of indexing are reviewed, and the theoretical basis of both manual indexing and automatic indexing is discussed, and a classification of theories is suggested (rationalist, cognitivist, empiricist, and historicist and pragmatist theories). It is claimed that although many researchers do not consider indexing to be a theoretical issue (or consider it to be a field without theories) indexing is indeed highly theory-laden (and the idea of atheoretical indexing is an oxymoron). An important issue is also the subjectivity of the indexer, in particular, her socio-cultural and paradigmatic background, as for example, when authors of documents are the best indexers of their own documents. The article contains a section about the tools available for indexing in the form of the indexing languages and their nature. It is concluded that the social epistemology first proposed by Jesse Shera in 1951 provides the most fruitful theoretical framework for indexing.

0.0049609425 = product of:
  0.009921885 = sum of:
    0.009921885 = product of:
      0.049609426 = sum of:
        0.049609426 = weight(_text_:authors in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049609426 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 1975 Tefko Saracevic declared the subject knowledge view to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance. This paper examines the assumptions in different views of relevance, including the system's view and the user's view and offers a reinterpretation of these views. The paper finds that what was regarded as the most fundamental view by Saracevic in 1975 has not since been considered (with very few exceptions). Other views, which are based on less fruitful assumptions, have dominated the discourse on relevance in information retrieval and information science. Many authors have reexamined the concept of relevance in information science, but have neglected the subject knowledge view, hence basic theoretical assumptions seem not to have been properly addressed. It is as urgent now as it was in 1975 seriously to consider the subject knowledge view of relevance (which may also be termed the epistemological view). The concept of relevance, like other basic concepts, is influenced by overall approaches to information science, such as the cognitive view and the domain-analytic view. There is today a trend toward a social paradigm for information science. This paper offers an understanding of relevance from such a social point of view.

0.0049609425 = product of:
  0.009921885 = sum of:
    0.009921885 = product of:
      0.049609426 = sum of:
        0.049609426 = weight(_text_:authors in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049609426 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19698687 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04321011 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.