Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020141672 = product of:
  0.08056669 = sum of:
    0.08056669 = weight(_text_:communication in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056669 = score(doc=2724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.4048012 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study establishes 3 predominant cognitive models of information and the information transfer process manifest in the literature of library and information science, based on a linguistic analysis of phrases incoporating the word 'information' from a random sample of abstracts in the LISA database. The direct communication (DC) and indirect communication (IC) models (drawn from Reddy's frameworks of metalinguistic usage) adopt the perspective of the information system; the information-seeking (IS) model takes the viewpoint of the information user. 2 disturbing findings are presented: 1. core elements of the DC and IC models are more weakly supported by the data than are most of the peripheral elements; and 2. even though the IS model presents the information user's perspective, the data emphasise the role of the information system. These findings suggest respectively that the field lacks a coherent model of information transfer per se and that our model of information retrieval is mechanistic, oblivious to the cognitive models of end users

0.014242312 = product of:
  0.056969248 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper is divided into 3 parts. The 1st develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 sets of contrasts: user (need)-oriented vs. document-oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs for the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. The 2nd part establishes the centrality of relationships to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression inboth natural languages and indexing languages. The use of relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. The 3rd part illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. Although not a panacea, the adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.014242312 = product of:
  0.056969248 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 set of contrasts: user-oriented vs. document oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs of the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. Established the centrality of relationship to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression in both natural languages and index languages. The use of a relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. Illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. The adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.0054644486 = product of:
  0.021857794 = sum of:
    0.021857794 = product of:
      0.04371559 = sum of:
        0.04371559 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04371559 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, 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=1419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0039031778 = product of:
  0.015612711 = sum of:
    0.015612711 = product of:
      0.031225422 = sum of:
        0.031225422 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031225422 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22