Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023252133 = product of:
  0.09300853 = sum of:
    0.09300853 = weight(_text_:subject in 1899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09300853 = score(doc=1899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 1899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1899)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.016441742 = product of:
  0.06576697 = sum of:
    0.06576697 = weight(_text_:subject in 4966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06576697 = score(doc=4966,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 4966, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4966)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Landmark textbook taking a whole subject approach to information science as a discipline. The authors' expert narratives guides you through each of the essential components of information science, offering a concise introduction an expertly chosen readings and resources. This is the definitve science textbook for students of this subject, and of information and knowledge management, librarianship, archives and records management worldwide.

0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes a method for carrying out research in a multimedia environment encompassing printed, electronic and Internet based resources. The framework was used to compile a listing of toxicology information resources, as part of a larger study on the effect of new information and communication technologies on scientific communication within this field. It is likely, however, that the approach can be applied to research in any subject.

0.008328443 = product of:
  0.033313774 = sum of:
    0.033313774 = product of:
      0.06662755 = sum of:
        0.06662755 = weight(_text_:classification in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06662755 = score(doc=4198,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.4450763 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the classification of musical medium, which is a critical part of music classification. It considers how musical medium is currently classified, provides a theoretical understanding of what is currently problematic, and proposes a model which rethinks the classification of medium and resolves these issues. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is drawn from existing classification schemes, additionally using musicological and knowledge organization literature where relevant. The paper culminates in the design of a model of musical medium. Findings The analysis elicits sub-facets, orders and categorizations of medium: there is a strict categorization between vocal and instrumental music, a categorization based on broad size, and important sub-facets for multiples, accompaniment and arrangement. Problematically, there is a mismatch between the definitiveness of library and information science vocal/instrumental categorization and the blurred nature of real musical works; arrangements and accompaniments are limited by other categorizations; multiple voices and groups are not accommodated. So, a model with a radical new structure is proposed which resolves these classification issues. Research limitations/implications The results could be used to further understanding of music classification generally, for Western art music and other types of music. Practical implications The resulting model could be used to improve and design new classification schemes and to improve understanding of music retrieval. Originality/value Deep theoretical analysis of music classification is rare, so this paper's approach is original. Furthermore, the paper's value lies in studying a vital area of music classification which is not currently understood, and providing explanations and solutions. The proposed model is novel in structure and concept, and its original structure could be adapted for other knotty subjects.

0.00806398 = product of:
  0.03225592 = sum of:
    0.03225592 = product of:
      0.06451184 = sum of:
        0.06451184 = weight(_text_:classification in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06451184 = score(doc=4988,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scientific classification is an important topic in contemporary knowledge organization discourse, yet the nature of the relationships between scientific and bibliographic classifications has not been fully studied. This article considers the connections between scientific and bibliographic classifications for music, taking general discourse about scientific classification and domain analysis as its starting point. Three relationship characteristics are posited: similarity, causation, and time. In discussions about similarity, "accords" and "discords" are analyzed. Further, the idea of a scale of accord is introduced, and issues with assuming a univocal scientific or bibliographic classification of music are discussed. Causation and the idea of influence between scientific and bibliographic classifications for music are unpicked. The connections between accordance and influence are explored, and the concept of differing purposes for different classification approaches is analyzed. A temporal dimension is considered, and the dynamic nature of connections between music scientific and bibliographic classifications is established. The idea of bifurcation is introduced-a change of accordance over time-which is prominent for musical instrument classification. The concluding model visualizes similarity, causation and temporal aspects as three dimensions, showing how scientific and bibliographic classifications for music are connected through a set of interconnected and complex relationships.

0.00806398 = product of:
  0.03225592 = sum of:
    0.03225592 = product of:
      0.06451184 = sum of:
        0.06451184 = weight(_text_:classification in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06451184 = score(doc=212,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The classification of Western art music is a complex area of knowledge organization, yet the reasons for those complexities have not been fully studied. This research dissects the concept of orthogonality, in particular regard to music classification. Orthogonality (antonym: dependency) means that one facet acts independently from another facet. Although orthogonality is an assumed quality of facets, it has attracted relatively little attention in knowledge organization discourse. This research utilizes bibliographic classification schemes, musicological writings, and musical works to analyze orthogonality in music classification. The relationships between the medium, form/genre, and function facets are unpicked and a strong dependency is found between these facets. Whether this orthogonality exists as a construct of faceted classification or stems from the domain knowledge is explored. Furthermore, the analysis initiates new thinking about the general concept of orthogonality. The idea of a spectrum of dependency is proposed. In addition, novel, orthogonality-derived phenomena are discussed-"dynamic facets" and "meta-dependency"-where the boundary between what is and is not a facet is blurred. The concluding model visualizes the chain of dependencies between music facets, ultimately showing how the lack of orthogonality plays a key role in the complexity and issues found in music classification.

0.00526737 = product of:
  0.02106948 = sum of:
    0.02106948 = product of:
      0.04213896 = sum of:
        0.04213896 = weight(_text_:classification in 1231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04213896 = score(doc=1231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 1231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.00526737 = product of:
  0.02106948 = sum of:
    0.02106948 = product of:
      0.04213896 = sum of:
        0.04213896 = weight(_text_:classification in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04213896 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.003950528 = product of:
  0.015802111 = sum of:
    0.015802111 = product of:
      0.031604223 = sum of:
        0.031604223 = weight(_text_:classification in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031604223 = score(doc=1771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.002633685 = product of:
  0.01053474 = sum of:
    0.01053474 = product of:
      0.02106948 = sum of:
        0.02106948 = weight(_text_:classification in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02106948 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose This article describes the third part of a three-stage study investigating the information behaviour of fans and fan communities, the first stage of which is described in the study by Price and Robinson (2017). Design/methodology/approach Using tag analysis as a method, a comparative case study was undertaken to explore three aspects of fan information behaviour: information gatekeeping; classifying and tagging and entrepreneurship and economic activity. The case studies took place on three sites used by fans-Tumblr, Archive of Our Own (AO3) and Etsy. Supplementary semi-structured interviews with site users were used to augment the findings with qualitative data. Findings These showed that fans used tags in a variety of ways quite apart from classification purposes. These included tags being used on Tumblr as meta-commentary and a means of dialogue between users, as well as expressors of emotion and affect towards posts. On AO3 in particular, fans had developed a practice called "tag wrangling" to mitigate the inherent "messiness" of tagging. Evidence was also found of a "hybrid market economy" on Etsy fan stores. From the study findings, a taxonomy of fan-related tags was developed. Research limitations/implications Findings are limited to the tagging practices on only three sites used by fans during Spring 2016, and further research on other similar sites are recommended. Longitudinal studies of these sites would be beneficial in understanding how or whether tagging practices change over time. Testing of the fan-tag taxonomy developed in this paper is also recommended. Originality/value This research develops a method for using tag analysis to describe information behaviour. It also develops a fan-tag taxonomy, which may be used in future research on the tagging practices of fans, which heretofore have been a little-studied section of serious leisure information users.