Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

0.01813989 = product of:
  0.12697922 = sum of:
    0.12697922 = weight(_text_:interactions in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12697922 = score(doc=1958,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.55291826 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

0.009795434 = product of:
  0.068568036 = sum of:
    0.068568036 = product of:
      0.13713607 = sum of:
        0.13713607 = weight(_text_:humans in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13713607 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26276368 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.52189887 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Issues concerning the formulation and application of a model of how humans value information are examined. Formulation of a value function is based on research from modelling, value assessment, human information seeking behavior, and human decision making. The proposed function is incorporated into a computer-based fiction retrieval system and evaluated using data from nine searches. Evaluation is based on the ability of an individual's value function to discriminate among novels selected, rejected, and not considered. The results are discussed in terms of both formulation and utilization of a value function as well as the implications for extending the proposed formulation to other information seeking environments

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 6525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6525)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Examines the goals of bibliographic control, subject analysis and their relationship for audiovisual materials in general and multipart videotape recordings in particular. Concludes that intellectual access to multipart works is not adequately provided for when these materials are catalogues in collective set records. An alternative is to catalogue the parts separately. This method increases intellectual access by providing more detailed descriptive notes and subject analysis. As evidenced by the large number of records in the national database for parts of multipart videos, cataloguers have made the intellectual content of multipart videos more accessible by cataloguing the parts separately rather than collectively. This reverses the traditional cataloguing process to begin with subject analysis, resulting in the intellectual content of these materials driving the bibliographic description. Suggests ways of determining when multipart videos are best catalogued as sets or separately

Source

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

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.005289354 = product of:
  0.018512737 = sum of:
    0.010599243 = weight(_text_:with in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010599243 = score(doc=2293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.112958014 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.0079134945 = product of:
      0.015826989 = sum of:
        0.015826989 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015826989 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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. ...

0.005004176 = product of:
  0.017514614 = sum of:
    0.012238951 = weight(_text_:with in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012238951 = score(doc=1858,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.13043268 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.0052756635 = product of:
      0.010551327 = sum of:
        0.010551327 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010551327 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.004282741 = product of:
  0.029979186 = sum of:
    0.029979186 = weight(_text_:with in 2977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029979186 = score(doc=2977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3194935 = fieldWeight in 2977, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2977)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper argues that the realisation of the electronic hypermedia of the future depends on integrating the technology of free text retrieval with the classification-based discipline of content analysis

0.004282741 = product of:
  0.029979186 = sum of:
    0.029979186 = weight(_text_:with in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029979186 = score(doc=521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3194935 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reviews the methods of calculating the information content of images, with particular reference to the information content of printed and photographic images; and printed and television images

0.004282741 = product of:
  0.029979186 = sum of:
    0.029979186 = weight(_text_:with in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029979186 = score(doc=473,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3194935 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this study descriptions of a novel by 100 users at 2 Swedish public libraries, Malmö and Molndal, Mar-Apr 95, were compared to the index terms used for the novels at these libraries. Describes previous systems for fiction indexing, the 2 libraries, and the users interviewed. Compares the AMP system with their own model. The latter operates with terms under the headings phenomena, frame and author's intention. The similarities between the users' and indexers' descriptions were sufficiently close to make it possible to retrieve fiction in accordance with users' wishes in Molndal, and would have been in Malmö, had more books been indexed with more terms. Sometimes the similarities were close enough for users to retrieve fiction on their own

0.004282741 = product of:
  0.029979186 = sum of:
    0.029979186 = weight(_text_:with in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029979186 = score(doc=4240,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3194935 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Since information science concerns the transmission of records, it concerns context. The transmission of documents ensures their arrival in new contexts. Documents and their copies are spread across times and places. The amount of labor required to discover and retrieve relevant documents is also formulated by context. Thus, any serious consideration of communication and of information technologies quickly leads to a concern with context, relevance, and labor. Information scientists have developed many theories of context, relevance, and labor but not a framework for organizing them and describing their relationship with one another. We propose the words context and relevance can be used to articulate a useful framework for considering the diversity of approaches to context and relevance in information science, as well as their relations with each other and with labor.

0.0037683311 = product of:
  0.026378317 = sum of:
    0.026378317 = product of:
      0.052756634 = sum of:
        0.052756634 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052756634 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=6472,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Studies of indexing neglect the first stage of the process, that is, subject analysis. In this study, novice indexers were asked to analyse three short, popular journal articles; to express the general subject as well as the primary and secondary topics in natural laguage statements; to state what influenced the analysis and to comment on the ease or difficulty of this process. The factors which influenced the process were: the subject discipline concerned, factual vs. subjective nature of the text, complexity of the subject, clarity of text, possible support offered by bibliographic apparatus such as title, etc. The findings showed that with the social science and science texts, the general subject could be determined with ease, while this was more difficult with the humanities text. Clear evidence emerged of the importance of bibliographical apparatus in defining the general subject. There was varying difficulty in determining the primary and secondarx topics

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=703,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

It is a truism in information science that indexing is associated with 'aboutness', and that index terms that accurately represent what a document is about will serve the needs of the user/searcher well. It is contended in this paper that indexing which is limited to the representation of aboutness serves the novice in a discipline adequately, but does not serve the scholar or researcher, who is concerned with highly specific aspects of or points-of-view on a subject. The linguistic analogs of 'aboutness' and 'aspects' are 'topic' and 'comment' respectively. Serial indexing services deal with topics at varyng levels of specificity, but neglect comment almost entirely. This may explain the underutilization of secondary information services by scholars, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in user studies. It may also account for the incomplete lists of bibliographic references in many research papers. Natural language searching of fulltext databases does not solve this problem, because the aspect of a topic of interest to researchers is often inexpressible in concrete terms. The thesis is illustrated with examples of indexing failures in research projects the author has conducted on a range of linguistic and library-information science topics. Finally, the question of whether indexing can be improved to meet the needs of researchers is examined

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=1590,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=2069,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 3584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=3584,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 3584, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3584)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Emotional meaning is critical for users to retrieve relevant images. However, because emotional meanings are subject to the individual viewer's interpretation, they are considered difficult to implement when designing image retrieval systems. With the intent of making an image's emotional messages more readily accessible, this study aims to test a new approach designed to enhance the accessibility of emotional meanings during the image search process. This approach utilizes image searchers' emotional reactions, which are quantitatively measured. Broadly used quantitative measurements for emotional reactions, Semantic Differential (SD) and Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), were selected as tools for gathering users' reactions. Emotional representations obtained from these two tools were compared with three image perception tasks: searching, describing, and sorting. A survey questionnaire with a set of 12 images was administered to 58 participants, which were tagged with basic emotions. Results demonstrated that the SAM represents basic emotions on 2-dimensional plots (pleasure and arousal dimensions), and this representation consistently corresponded to the three image perception tasks. This study provided experimental evidence that quantitative users' reactions can be a useful complementary element of current image retrieval/indexing systems. Integrating users' reactions obtained from the SAM into image browsing systems would reduce the efforts of human indexers as well as improve the effectiveness of image retrieval systems.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 6147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=6147,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 6147, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6147)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Content analysis, restricted within the limits of written textual documents (WTDCA), is a field which is greatly in need of extensive interdisciplinary research. This would clarify certain concepts, especially those concerned with 'text', as a new central nucleus of semiotic research, and 'content', or the informative power of text. The objective reality (syntax) of the written document should be, in the cognitve process that all content analysis entails, interpreted (semantically and pragmatically) in an intersubjective manner with regard to the context, the analyst's knowledge base and the documentary objectives. The contributions of sociolinguistics (textual), logic (formal) and psychology (cognitive) are fundamental to the conduct of these activities. The criteria used to validate the results obtained complete the necessary conceptual reference panorama

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 1794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=1794,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 1794, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1794)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Document understanding, the interpretation of a document from its image form, is a technology area which benefits greatly from the integration of natural language processing with image processing. Develops a prototype of an Intelligent Document Understanding System (IDUS) which employs several technologies: image processing, optical character recognition, document structure analysis and text understanding in a cooperative fashion. Discusses those areas of research during development of IDUS where it is found that the most benefit from the integration of natural language processing and image processing occured: document structure analysis, OCR correction, and text analysis. Discusses 2 applications which are supported by IDUS: text retrieval and automatic generation of hypertext links

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=5170,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Catalogers' judgment has been frequently mentioned, but rarely has been researched in formal studies. The purpose of this article is to investigate catalogers' judgment through an exploration of the texts collected in the database of Library and Information Science Source. Verbs, adjectives, and nouns intimately associated with catalogers' judgment were extracted, analyzed, and grouped into 16 categories, which lead to 5 conceptual descriptions. The results of this study provide cataloging professionals with an overall picture on aspects of catalogers' judgment, which may help library school students and graduates and novice catalogers to become independent and confident decision makers relating to cataloging work.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=2127,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This study demonstrates an improved conceptual foundation to support well-structured analysis of image topicality. First we present a conceptual framework for analyzing image topicality, explicating the layers, the perspectives, and the topical relevance relationships involved in modeling the topicality of art images. We adapt a generic relevance typology to image analysis by extending it with definitions and relationships specific to the visual art domain and integrating it with schemes of image-text relationships that are important for image subject indexing. We then apply the adapted typology to analyze the topical relevance relationships between 11 art images and 768 image tags assigned by art historians and librarians. The original contribution of our work is the topical structure analysis of image tags that allows the viewer to more easily grasp the content, context, and meaning of an image and quickly tune into aspects of interest; it could also guide both the indexer and the searcher to specify image tags/descriptors in a more systematic and precise manner and thus improve the match between the two parties. An additional contribution is systematically examining and integrating the variety of image-text relationships from a relevance perspective. The paper concludes with implications for relational indexing and social tagging.