Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033250365 = product of:
  0.06650073 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=1132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1132, 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=1132)
    0.05620132 = product of:
      0.11240264 = sum of:
        0.11240264 = weight(_text_:organization in 1132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11240264 = score(doc=1132,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.62532854 = fieldWeight in 1132, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper we discuss some ethical issues and challenges of the use of algorithms on the web from the perspective of knowledge organization. We review some of the problems that these algorithms and the filter bubbles pose for the users. We contextualize these issues within the user-based approaches to knowledge organization in a larger sense. We review some of the technologies that have been developed to counter these problems as well as initiatives from the knowledge organization field. We conclude with the necessity of adopting a critical and ethical stance towards the use of algorithms on the web and the need for an education in knowledge organization that addresses these issues.

Content

Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-5/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-5.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: 4th International Conference on the Ethics of Information and Knowledge Organization, June 8-9, University of Lille, France.

Source

Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.5, S.352 - 358

0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=1973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the recent years, several libraries in the United States have been experimenting with Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), the classification system of the book industry, as an alternative to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Although rarely discussed, these cases of implementation of BISAC arguably resemble other past cases of replacement of traditional classifications that received the name of reader-interest classifications. In this article, a comparison of the BISAC cases to the previous cases of reader-interest classifications is taken in order to determine if the current application of BISAC to libraries is susceptible to the same problems, dangers, and ends as occurred in the past.

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