Search (28 results, page 2 of 2)

0.011708609 = product of:
  0.046834435 = sum of:
    0.046834435 = product of:
      0.09366887 = sum of:
        0.09366887 = weight(_text_:organization in 3865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09366887 = score(doc=3865,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.52110714 = fieldWeight in 3865, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Epistemic communities can be understood as networks of knowledge - based experts that hold in common a set of principled and causal beliefs, have shared notions of validity, exchange knowledge, and shape, demarcate, and articulate the identities of present and future knowledge producers. In Knowledge Organization, epistemic communities have been likened to the term "domain" in the domain - analytic paradigm. Acknowledging the important role that ISKO C - US, the International Society for Knowledge Organization: Chapter for Canada and United States, plays in the international production of scientific knowledge, we aim to characterize this epistemic community based on the publications of the five North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) meetings proceedings. The results allow us to conclude that the ISKO C - US community is a productive, dialogical, and a continuously well - developed community with a well - balanced trajectory between an epistemological dimension, in search of its theoretical and methodological bases, and a social dimension, considering different cultural backgrounds. These aspects demarcate and shape the road for future research on knowledge organization.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.010731118 = product of:
  0.04292447 = sum of:
    0.04292447 = product of:
      0.08584894 = sum of:
        0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08584894 = score(doc=3173,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the epistemic stances and research methods and techniques of the thirty-three journal articles that Hope Olson published during the period 1991-2015. For the analysis of the epistemic stances, we use Hjørland's classification of epistemological stances (namely rationalism, empiricism, historicism, and pragmatism), and for the classification of methodologies and methods we use the taxonomy used by Beak et al., loosely based on the consulted literature. Results of the analysis are presented and discussed in the context of the poststructuralist stance adopted by Hope Olson throughout her career. We highlight the impact of the innovative research methods and techniques and poststructuralist theoretical frameworks that Hope Olson introduced and used in knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.5, S.358-366

0.007510218 = product of:
  0.030040871 = sum of:
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=3626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and common characteristics in the knowledge organization literature for more than half a century. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. The use of reader-interest classification related terms and references drastically declined since 1995, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day such as those of implementation of BISAC in American public libraries. The present paper attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.3, S.234-246

0.007510218 = product of:
  0.030040871 = sum of:
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=832,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the context of Knowledge Organization (KO) the ontological focus is sometimes overlooked in studies related to the nature of the concept. This study presents an analysis with this purpose, questioning possible modes of existence of concepts (such as mental representations, cognitive abilities or abstract objects), framed in four different readings: a linguistic one, the psychological one, the epistemological one, and the ontological one; and focuses on the two first ones. The suitability of using the concept as an elementary unit of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) is analyzed according to the different perspectives. From a mental entity, passing to another one that exists in a non-mental realm, although also non-physical, moving on to another one with an objective linguistic existence.

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.2, S.102-114

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 2827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=2827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 2827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.1, S.56-63

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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