Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Jacob, E.K."
  1. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: User-generated genre tags through the lens of genre theories (2014) 0.06
    0.060477056 = product of:
      0.12095411 = sum of:
        0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016698781 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=1450,freq=54.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
              7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
                54.0 = termFreq=54.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
        0.0698768 = sum of:
          0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.012484977 = score(doc=1450,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
          0.05739182 = weight(_text_:line in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.05739182 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
        0.0111897 = product of:
          0.0223794 = sum of:
            0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0223794 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.
    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
  2. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.06
    0.05910926 = product of:
      0.09457482 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
        0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017710768 = score(doc=2945,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=2945,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    Abstract
    Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
  3. Hert, C.A.; Jacob, E.K.; Dawson, P.: ¬A usability assessment of online indexing structures in the networked environment (2000) 0.04
    0.035899878 = product of:
      0.071799755 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=5158,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
        0.0110352645 = product of:
          0.022070529 = sum of:
            0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022070529 = score(doc=5158,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Usability of Web sites has become an increasingly important area of research as Web sites proliferate and problems with use are noted. Generally, aspects of Web sites that have been investigated focus on such areas as overall design and navigation. The exploratory study reported on here investigates one specific component of a Web site-the index structure. By employing index usability metrics developed by Liddy and Jörgensen (1993; Jörgensen & Liddy, 1996) and modified to accommodate a hypertext environment, the study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of 20 subjects who used one existing index (the A-Z index on the FedStats Web site at http://www.fedstats.gov) and three experimental variants to complete five researcher-generated tasks. User satisfaction with the indexes was also evaluated. The findings indicate that a hypertext index with multiple access points for each concept, all linked to the same resource, led to greater effectiveness and efficiency of retrieval on almost all measures. Satisfaction measures were more variable. The study offers insight into potential improvements in the design of Web-based indexes and provides preliminary assessment of the validity of the measures employed
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.971-988
  4. Jacob, E.K.; Albrechtsen, H.: When essence becomes function : post-structuralist implications for an ecological theory of organizational classification systems (1999) 0.03
    0.027426984 = product of:
      0.073138624 = sum of:
        0.04277933 = weight(_text_:use in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04277933 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3383162 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
        0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019324033 = score(doc=3182,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
        0.0110352645 = product of:
          0.022070529 = sum of:
            0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022070529 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Source
    Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Sheffield, UK, 1998. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen
  5. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: Investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies : a case of wild or tamed categorization? (2014) 0.03
    0.025687031 = product of:
      0.06849875 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
        0.027328307 = weight(_text_:of in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027328307 = score(doc=1451,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.42320424 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
        0.019780781 = product of:
          0.039561562 = sum of:
            0.039561562 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039561562 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Previous studies of user-generated vocabularies (e.g., Golder & Huberman, 2006; Munk & Mork, 2007b; Yoon, 2009) have proposed that a primary source of tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of tags at the basic level of abstraction. However, an investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies did not support this notion. This study analyzed approximately 8000 tags generated by 40 subjects. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned to 36 online resources representing four content categories (TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) and three resource genres (news article, blog, ecommerce) did not find statistically significant preferences in the assignment of tags at the superordinate, subordinate or basic levels of abstraction. Within the framework of Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness , observed variations in the preferred level of abstraction are both natural and phenomenological in that perception and understanding -- and thus the meaning of "things" -- arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects. Operationalization of superordinate, subordinate and basic levels of abstraction using Heidegger's notion of handiness may be able to account for differences in the everyday experiences and activities of taggers, thereby leading to a better understanding of user-generated tagging vocabularies.
    Date
    5. 9.2014 16:22:27
    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
  6. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.03
    0.025219705 = product of:
      0.06725255 = sum of:
        0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036299463 = score(doc=3290,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
        0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017710768 = score(doc=3290,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
        0.013242318 = product of:
          0.026484637 = sum of:
            0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026484637 = score(doc=3290,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2388-2401
  7. Krutulis, J.D.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬A theoretical model for the study of emergent structure in adaptive information networks (1995) 0.02
    0.023724368 = product of:
      0.06326498 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
        0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020662563 = score(doc=3353,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
        0.013379549 = product of:
          0.026759097 = sum of:
            0.026759097 = weight(_text_:on in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026759097 = score(doc=3353,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Attempts to automate classification have focused on mimicking the intellectual processes whereby human classifiers assign entities to mutually exclusive groups that exhibit or more shared characteristics. A more viable approach might be to construct an adaptive retrieval system that produces groupings of related entities by generating dynamic categories based on document content and on the system's emergent structure as it adapts to modifications in the database and to observed patterns of access. Presents a theoretical model for adaptive information networks using relevance feedback and genetic algorithms to generate emergent structure
    Imprint
    Alberta : Alberta University, School of Library and Information Studies
    Source
    Connectedness: information, systems, people, organizations. Proceedings of CAIS/ACSI 95, the proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science. Ed. by Hope A. Olson and Denis B. Ward
  8. Jacob, E.K.: Augmenting human capabilities : classification as cognitive scaffolding (2003) 0.01
    0.013008684 = product of:
      0.052034736 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
        0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022089208 = score(doc=2672,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The argument presented here seeks to extend the notion of the classification scheme as a culturally-transmitted tool by emphasizing the cognitive value of the scheme's internal patterns of relationship. lt elaborates an the use of classification as cognitive scaffolding (Jacob, 2001) and amplifies this idea through application of three constructs - constraints, selections and expectations - derived from Luhmann's (1995) theory of social systems.
    Source
    Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
  9. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: Factors influencing user-generated vocabularies : how basic are basic level terms? (2015) 0.01
    0.011967305 = product of:
      0.04786922 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=2108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
        0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022201622 = score(doc=2108,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies (e.g., Yoon 2009) suggest that tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of basic level category terms. This study investigated whether differences in the superordinate, subordinate or basic level of abstraction were influenced by resource content. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned by 40 participants to 36 online resources representing four content categories (i.e., TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) found significant differences in the frequency of occurrence of subordinate and basic level tags assigned to resources in the FRUIT content category and of superordinate and basic level tags assigned to resources in the CLOTHING content category. This study suggests that variation in the level of abstraction of content related tags is natural in that perception and understanding arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects.
  10. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The legacy of pragmatism : implications for knowledge organization in a pluralistic universe (2000) 0.01
    0.011069614 = product of:
      0.044278458 = sum of:
        0.024696484 = weight(_text_:of in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024696484 = score(doc=119,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 119, 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=119)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Although postmodernist philosophy is frequently characterized as unconstrained relativism and radical skepticism, It shares with pragmatism a strong antipathy to modernity's separation of mind and body, of subject and object, of the human and the material. The criticisms raised by postmodernism have significant implications for current understandings of classification theory and practice. The critical tenets of pragmatism provide an epistemological framework for the development of classificatory structures that will address current failings and respond to the demands of an increasingly interdisciplinary store of knowledge
    Pages
    S.16-22
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
  11. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Fried, M.; Toma, I.; Yan, E.; Foo, S.; Milojevicacute, S.: Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data (2010) 0.01
    0.008900973 = product of:
      0.035603892 = sum of:
        0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024135707 = score(doc=3421,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
        0.011468184 = product of:
          0.022936368 = sum of:
            0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022936368 = score(doc=3421,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Data integration and mediation have become central concerns of information technology over the past few decades. With the advent of the Web and the rapid increases in the amount of data and the number of Web documents and users, researchers have focused on enhancing the interoperability of data through the development of metadata schemes. Other researchers have looked to the wealth of metadata generated by bookmarking sites on the Social Web. While several existing ontologies have capitalized on the semantics of metadata created by tagging activities, the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO) emphasizes the structure of tagging activities to facilitate modeling of tagging data and the integration of data from different bookmarking sites as well as the alignment of tagging ontologies. UTO is described and its utility in modeling, harvesting, integrating, searching, and analyzing data is demonstrated with metadata harvested from three major social tagging systems (Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.505-521
  12. Jacob, E.K.; Shaw, D.: Sociocognitive perspectives on representation (1999) 0.01
    0.0088768 = product of:
      0.0355072 = sum of:
        0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017850775 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
        0.017656423 = product of:
          0.035312846 = sum of:
            0.035312846 = weight(_text_:on in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035312846 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 33(1998), S.131-186
  13. Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011) 0.01
    0.008623829 = product of:
      0.034495316 = sum of:
        0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017710768 = score(doc=302,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The everyday world of work : two approaches to the investigation of classification in context (2001) 0.01
    0.0076072896 = product of:
      0.030429158 = sum of:
        0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02087234 = score(doc=4494,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=4494,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    One major aspect of T.D. Wilson's research has been his insistence on situating the investigation of information behaviour within the context of its occurrence - within the everyday world of work. The significance of this approach is reviewed in light of the notion of embodied cognition that characterises the evolving theoretical episteme in cognitive science research. Embodied cognition employs complex external props such as stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings to reduce the cognitive burden on the individual and to augment human problem-solving activities. The cognitive function of the classification scheme is described as exemplifying both stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings. Two different but complementary approaches to the investigation of situated cognition are presented: cognition-as-scaffolding and cognition-as-infrastructure. Classification-as-scaffolding views the classification scheme as a knowledge storage device supporting and promoting cognitive economy. Classification-as-infrastructure views the classification system as a social convention that, when integrated with technological structures and organisational practices, supports knowledge management work. Both approaches are shown to build upon and extend Wilson's contention that research is most productive when it attends to the social and organisational contexts of cognitive activity by focusing on the everyday world of work.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 57(2001) no.1, S.76-99
  15. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬A theoretical framework for operationalizing basic level categories in knowledge organization research (2012) 0.01
    0.0063886913 = product of:
      0.025554765 = sum of:
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=830,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Research on categories indicates that superordinate categories lack informativeness because they are represented by only a few attributes while subordinate categories lack cognitive economy because they are represented by too many attributes (e.g., Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976). Basic level categories balance informativeness and cognitive economy: They represent the most attributes common to category members and the fewest attributes shared across categories. Green (2006) has suggested that the universality of basic level categories can be used for building crosswalks between classificatory systems. However, studies of basic level categories in KO systems have assumed that the notion of a basic level category is understood and have failed to operationalize the notion of "basic level category" before applying it in the analysis of user-generated vocabularies. Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness (i.e., zuhandenheit, or being "at hand" can provide a framework for understanding the unstable and relational nature of basic level categories and for operationalizing basic level categories in KO research.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
  16. Loehrlein, A.; Jacob, E.K.; Lee, S.; Yang, K.: Development of heuristics in a hybrid approach to faceted classification (2006) 0.01
    0.0062969346 = product of:
      0.025187738 = sum of:
        0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017463053 = score(doc=247,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes work in progress to identify automated methods to complement and streamline the intellectual process in the generation of faceted schemes. It reports on the development of the word pair heuristic, the suffix heuristic, and the WordNet heuristic, and how the three heuristics integrate to produce an initial organization of terms from which a classificationist can more efficiently construct a faceted vocabulary.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
  17. Albrechtsen, H.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬The dynamics of classification as boundary objects for cooperation in the electronic library (1998) 0.01
    0.006210416 = product of:
      0.024841664 = sum of:
        0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019324033 = score(doc=859,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    On the possible role of classification schemes in the production of knowledge in organizations
    Content
    The notion of the classification scheme as a transitional element or "boundary object" (Star, 1989) offers an alternative to the more traditional approach that views classification as an organizational structure imposed upon a body of knowledge to facilitate access within a universal and frequently static framework. Recognition of the underlying relationship between user access and the collective knowledge structures that are the basis for knowledge production indicates the dynamic role of classification in supporting coherence and articulation across heterogeneous contexts. To this end, it is argued that the library should be an active participant in the production of knowledge, and that this role can be effected by the development of classificatory structures that can support the needs of a diverse information ecology consisting of a complex web of interacting agents, users, and technologies. Within such an information ecology, a classificatory structure cannot follow a one-size-fits-all paradigm but must evolve in cooperative interaction between librarians and their user groups.
  18. Wildemuth, B.M.; Jacob, E.K.; Fullington, A.;; Bliek, R. de; Friedman, C.P.: ¬A detailed analysis of end-user search behaviours (1991) 0.01
    0.0060047456 = product of:
      0.024018982 = sum of:
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=2423,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users
    Source
    ASIS'91: systems understanding people. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths
  19. Jacob, E.K.; Priss, U.: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources (2001) 0.00
    0.0033817056 = product of:
      0.027053645 = sum of:
        0.027053645 = weight(_text_:of in 2253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027053645 = score(doc=2253,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 2253, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2253)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Controlled vocabulary and fixed citation order are two of the mechanisms used to effect collocation in traditional bibliographic classification schemes. Analysis of the rationale underlying application of each of these mechanisms provides a framework for the development of nontraditional approaches to the organization of resources available an the World Wide Web. When supported by an extralinguistic faceted vocabulary of concepts, this framework facilitates construction and implementation of flexible, dynamic indexing systems that can be applied in the design of electronic information systems and the organization of Web-based knowledge resources.
    Source
    Advances in classification research, vol.10: proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. Ed.: Albrechtsen, H. u. J.E. Mai
  20. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The structure of context : implications of structure for the creation of context in information systems (2004) 0.00
    0.003155601 = product of:
      0.025244808 = sum of:
        0.025244808 = weight(_text_:of in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025244808 = score(doc=2636,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Structural differences between systems of classification and categorization lead to meaningful differences in the contexts within which information can be apprehended. Examination of systemic properties, forms of interaction and functional capabilities that distinguish classification and categorization can identify the fundamental features that influence the conceptual context of an information system and contribute to its utility as a meaningful information environment.
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine