Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.037828006 = product of:
  0.07565601 = sum of:
    0.07565601 = product of:
      0.15131202 = sum of:
        0.15131202 = weight(_text_:m.p in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15131202 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3378906 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.44781366 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.031298883 = sum of:
  0.014356673 = product of:
    0.05742669 = sum of:
      0.05742669 = weight(_text_:authors in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05742669 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01694221 = product of:
    0.03388442 = sum of:
      0.03388442 = weight(_text_:22 in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03388442 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050019 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper aims to study the conceptual dimension of Knowledge Organization (KO) in the ISKO proceedings (1990-2012) domain. After analyzing a corpus of 71 papers that presented the term "knowledge organization" in their titles, using the methodology of Bardin's content analysis, it was possible to obtain a set of 11 definitions of KO which were studied using the following categories: nature, object, tools, processes, and perspectives/approaches. These categories act as a basis to identify the communities of authors that interact in the domain under different conceptual perspectives. The results show that KO has been mainly understood as an area or field of knowledge whose objects are recorded knowledge and conceptual structures, and whose main processes are classification and indexing, as well as information retrieval. The nature of KO is mostly linked to the construction of specialized discourses and the methodological dimension of such area is related to the systematization of recorded scientific knowledge.

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

0.014066608 = product of:
  0.028133215 = sum of:
    0.028133215 = product of:
      0.11253286 = sum of:
        0.11253286 = weight(_text_:authors in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11253286 = score(doc=2321,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss and shed light on the following questions: What is an author? Is it a person who writes? Or, is it, in information, an iconic taxonomic designation (some might say a "classification") for a group of writings that are recognized by the public in some particular way? What does it mean when a search engine, or catalog, asks a user to enter the name of an author? And how does that accord with the manner in which the data have been entered in association with the names of the entities identified with the concept of authorship? Design/methodology/approach - The authors use several cases as bases of phenomenological discourse analysis, combining as best the authors can components of eidetic bracketing (a Husserlian technique for isolating noetic reduction) with Foucauldian discourse analysis. The two approaches are not sympathetic or together cogent, so the authors present them instead as alternative explanations alongside empirical evidence. In this way the authors are able to isolate components of iconic "authorship" and then subsequently engage them in discourse. Findings - An "author" is an iconic name associated with a class of works. An "author" is a role in public discourse between a set of works and the culture that consumes them. An "author" is a role in cultural sublimation, or a power broker in deabstemiation. An "author" is last, if ever, a person responsible for the intellectual content of a published work. The library catalog's attribution of "author" is at odds with the Foucauldian discursive comprehension of the role of an "author." Originality/value - One of the main assets of this paper is the combination of Foucauldian discourse analysis with phenomenological analysis for the study of the "author." The authors turned to Foucauldian discourse analysis to discover the loci of power in the interactions of the public with the named authorial entities. The authors also looked to phenomenological analysis to consider the lived experience of users who encounter the same named authorial entities. The study of the "author" in this combined way facilitated the revelation of new aspects of the role of authorship in search engines and library catalogs.

0.012840998 = product of:
  0.025681997 = sum of:
    0.025681997 = product of:
      0.10272799 = sum of:
        0.10272799 = weight(_text_:authors in 3944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10272799 = score(doc=3944,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 3944, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3944)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update and review the concept of warrant in Library and Information Science (LIS) and to introduce the concept of epistemic warrant from philosophy. Epistemic warrant can be used to assess the content of a work; and therefore, it can be a complement to existing warrants, such as literary warrant, in the development of controlled vocabularies. In this proposal, the authors aim to activate a theoretical discussion on warrant in order to revise and improve the validity of the concept of warrant from the user and classifier context to the classificationist context. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted an extensive literary review and close reading of the concept of warrant in LIS and knowledge organization in order to detect the different stances and gaps in which the concept of epistemic warrant might apply. The authors adopted an epistemological approach, in the vein of some of the previous commenters on warrant, such as Hope Olson and Birger Hjørland, and built upon the theoretical framework of different authors working with the concept of warrant outside knowledge organization, such as Alvin Plantinga and Alvin Goldman. Findings There are some authors and critics in the literature that have voiced for a more epistemological approach to warrant (in opposition to a predominantly ontological approach). In this sense, epistemic warrant would be an epistemological warrant and also a step forward toward pragmatism in a prominently empiricist context such as the justification of the inclusion of terms in a controlled vocabulary. Epistemic warrant can be used to complement literary warrant in the development of controlled vocabularies as well as in the classification of works. Originality/value This paper presents an exhaustive update and revision of the concept of warrant, analyzing, systematizing, and reviewing the different warrants discussed in the LIS literary warrant in a critical way. The concept of epistemic warrant for categorizational activities is introduced to the LIS field for the first time. This paper, and the proposal of epistemic warrant, has the potential to contribute to the theoretical and practical discussions on the development of controlled vocabularies and assessment of the content of works.

0.010165325 = product of:
  0.02033065 = sum of:
    0.02033065 = product of:
      0.0406613 = sum of:
        0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406613 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1409, 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=1409)
      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

0.010165325 = product of:
  0.02033065 = sum of:
    0.02033065 = product of:
      0.0406613 = sum of:
        0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406613 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.008614004 = product of:
  0.017228007 = sum of:
    0.017228007 = product of:
      0.06891203 = sum of:
        0.06891203 = weight(_text_:authors in 2827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06891203 = score(doc=2827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2827, 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=2827)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bericht von dem "Fifth International UDC Seminar, entitled "Classification & Authority Control: Expanding Resource Discovery," was held in The National Library of Portugal in Lisbon on 29-30 October 2015". Darin auch: "Ulf Schöneberg and Wolfram Sperber, Leibniz-Insitut für Informationinfrastruktur, zbMATH (Germany) presented a paper entitled "Machine-Learning Methods for Classification and Content Authority Control in mathematics." This paper focused on the domain of mathematics, stating that "until now publications are the most important resource of mathematical knowledge and they are also the basis for knowledge management in mathematics." Following the introduction, the paper covers a brief historical remark of mathematics and challenges for content analysis in mathematics. Then, the authors proceeded to describe the automatic tools and practices on authority control and classification at the bibliographic database of mathematical literature zbMATH, including the development of machinebased concepts and tools to create controlled vocabularies and to improve the Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) scheme."

0.008614004 = product of:
  0.017228007 = sum of:
    0.017228007 = product of:
      0.06891203 = sum of:
        0.06891203 = weight(_text_:authors in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06891203 = score(doc=894,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 894, 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=894)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Several authors emphasize the need for a change in classification theory due to the influence of a dogmatic and monistic ontology supported by an outdated essentialism. These claims tend to focus on the fallibility of knowledge, the need for a pluralistic view, and the theoretical burden of observations. Regardless of the legitimacy of these concerns, there is the risk, when not moderate, to fall into the opposite relativistic extreme. Based on a narrative review of the literature, we aim to reflectively discuss the theoretical foundations that can serve as a basis for a realist position supporting pluralistic ontological classifications. The goal is to show that, against rather conventional solutions, objective scientific-based approaches to natural classifications are presented to be viable, allowing a proper distinction between ontological and taxonomic questions. Supported by critical scientific realism, we consider that such an approach is suitable for the development of ontological Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). We believe that ontological perspectivism can provide the necessary adaptation to the different granularities of reality.

0.0071783364 = product of:
  0.014356673 = sum of:
    0.014356673 = product of:
      0.05742669 = sum of:
        0.05742669 = weight(_text_:authors in 1384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05742669 = score(doc=1384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1384, 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=1384)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper studies knowledge organization (KO) in media archives, focusing on the presence of subjectivity in the core tasks of mass media knowledge organizers (MKOS) dealing with press, radio and TV records, such as classification, representation, and any other process related to content analysis and organization in news information systems. Far from rejecting subjectivity and ideological bias in these operations - since they coparticipate in the media construction of reality-the authors consider MKOS to be genuine ideological and cultural mediators with the right and social responsibility to explicitly state the results of their "objectifiable" work (obtained through KO protocols and procedures determined by the media/company, classifications, thesauri, ontologies, etc.) and differentiate them from those of their political, ideological, cultural and, in sum, subjective stances. In order to achieve this, we propose the application of critical operators that should be followed by technical, collaborative and even technological actions geared to investing information systems with the capacity to consider those stances and allowing users to distinguish them. In short, it is the theoretical recognition of the subjective and biased presence of media knowledge organization operators in a job that is usually considered neutral, banal and even objective, and the initial development of tools for critical, self-critical, technical, and technological training keyed to its practical solution. This paper outlines the lines of work of a broader research study on the critical function of KO in the field of global media memory.

0.0071783364 = product of:
  0.014356673 = sum of:
    0.014356673 = product of:
      0.05742669 = sum of:
        0.05742669 = weight(_text_:authors in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05742669 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5457, 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=5457)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.