Search (101 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Inhaltsanalyse"
  1. Tibbo, H.R.: Abstracting across the disciplines : a content analysis of abstracts for the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval (1992) 0.10
    0.09822942 = product of:
      0.19645885 = sum of:
        0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019420752 = score(doc=2536,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
        0.17703809 = weight(_text_:standards in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17703809 = score(doc=2536,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.78788567 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Reports on a comparison of the "content categories" listed in the ANSI/ISO abstracting standards to actual content found in abstracts from the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. The preliminary findings question the fundamental concept underlying these standards, namely, that any one set of standards and generalized instructions can describe and elicit the optimal configuration for abstracts from all subject areas
    Source
    Library and information science research. 14(1992) no.1, S.31-56
  2. Beghtol, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval (1992) 0.06
    0.06251157 = product of:
      0.12502314 = sum of:
        0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013732546 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
        0.11129059 = sum of:
          0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.056645606 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
          0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.054644987 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    5. 8.2006 13:22:08
    Source
    Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon
  3. Chen, S.-J.; Lee, H.-L.: Art images and mental associations : a preliminary exploration (2014) 0.06
    0.055682447 = product of:
      0.11136489 = sum of:
        0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01029941 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
        0.10106549 = sum of:
          0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.060081743 = score(doc=1416,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
          0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04098374 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reports on the preliminary findings of a study that explores mental associations made by novices viewing art images. In a controlled environment, 20 Taiwanese college students responded to the question "What does the painting remind you of?" after viewing each digitized image of 15 oil paintings by a famous Taiwanese artist. Rather than focusing on the representation or interpretation of art, the study attempted to solicit information about how non-experts are stimulated by art. This paper reports on the analysis of participant responses to three of the images, and describes a12-type taxonomy of association emerged from the analysis. While 9 of the types are derived and adapted from facets in the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, three new types - Artistic Influence Association, Reactive Association, and Prototype Association - are discovered. The conclusion briefly discusses both the significance of the findings and the implications for future research.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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
  4. BS 6529: Recommendations for examining documents, determining their subjects and selecting indexing terms (1984) 0.05
    0.054768365 = product of:
      0.21907346 = sum of:
        0.21907346 = weight(_text_:standards in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21907346 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.9749588 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Editor
    British Standards Institution
    Imprint
    London : British Standards Institution
  5. Raieli, R.: ¬The semantic hole : enthusiasm and caution around multimedia information retrieval (2012) 0.05
    0.052363444 = product of:
      0.10472689 = sum of:
        0.02102358 = weight(_text_:information in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02102358 = score(doc=4888,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
        0.08370331 = sum of:
          0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035403505 = score(doc=4888,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
          0.0482998 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0482998 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, 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=4888)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper centres on the tools for the management of new digital documents, which are not only textual, but also visual-video, audio or multimedia in the full sense. Among the aims is to demonstrate that operating within the terms of generic Information Retrieval through textual language only is limiting, and it is instead necessary to consider ampler criteria, such as those of MultiMedia Information Retrieval, according to which, every type of digital document can be analyzed and searched by the proper elements of language for its proper nature. MMIR is presented as the organic complex of the systems of Text Retrieval, Visual Retrieval, Video Retrieval, and Audio Retrieval, each of which has an approach to information management that handles the concrete textual, visual, audio, or video content of the documents directly, here defined as content-based. In conclusion, the limits of this content-based objective access to documents is underlined. The discrepancy known as the semantic gap is that which occurs between semantic-interpretive access and content-based access. Finally, the integration of these conceptions is explained, gathering and composing the merits and the advantages of each of the approaches and of the systems to access to information.
    Date
    22. 1.2012 13:02:10
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Enser, P.G.B.: Visual image retrieval. In: Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.3-42.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Subject representation and information seeking : contributions to a theory based on the theory of knowledge (1993) 0.04
    0.036798432 = product of:
      0.073596865 = sum of:
        0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024031956 = score(doc=7555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
        0.049564905 = product of:
          0.09912981 = sum of:
            0.09912981 = weight(_text_:organization in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09912981 = score(doc=7555,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Footnote
    [Dissertation]. - Zusammenfassung in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.2, S.94-98
  7. Shaw, R.: Information organization and the philosophy of history (2013) 0.03
    0.034896508 = product of:
      0.069793016 = sum of:
        0.026868545 = weight(_text_:information in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026868545 = score(doc=946,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
        0.04292447 = product of:
          0.08584894 = sum of:
            0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08584894 = score(doc=946,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 946, 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=946)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The philosophy of history can help articulate problems relevant to information organization. One such problem is "aboutness": How do texts relate to the world? In response to this problem, philosophers of history have developed theories of colligation describing how authors bind together phenomena under organizing concepts. Drawing on these ideas, I present a theory of subject analysis that avoids the problematic illusion of an independent "landscape" of subjects. This theory points to a broad vision of the future of information organization and some specific challenges to be met.
    Series
    Advances in information science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1092-1103
  8. Pozzi de Sousa, B.; Ortega, C.D.: Aspects regarding the notion of subject in the context of different theoretical trends : teaching approaches in Brazil (2018) 0.03
    0.03139454 = product of:
      0.06278908 = sum of:
        0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013732546 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
        0.049056537 = product of:
          0.098113075 = sum of:
            0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098113075 = score(doc=4707,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  9. Pejtersen, A.M.: Design of a classification scheme for fiction based on an analysis of actual user-librarian communication, and use of the scheme for control of librarians' search strategies (1980) 0.03
    0.02921453 = product of:
      0.05842906 = sum of:
        0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02427594 = score(doc=5835,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
        0.03415312 = product of:
          0.06830624 = sum of:
            0.06830624 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06830624 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    5. 8.2006 13:22:44
    Source
    Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u, L. Kajberg
  10. Garcia Jiménez, A.; Valle Gastaminza, F. del: From thesauri to ontologies: a case study in a digital visual context (2004) 0.02
    0.023770738 = product of:
      0.047541477 = sum of:
        0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01213797 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
        0.035403505 = product of:
          0.07080701 = sum of:
            0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07080701 = score(doc=2657,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper a framework for the construction and organization of knowledge organization and representation languages in the context of digital photograph collections is presented. It analyses exigencies of photographs as documentary objects, as well as several models of indexing, different proposals of languages and a theoretical revision of ontologies in this research field, in relation to visual documents. In considering the photograph as an analysis object, it is appropriate to study all its attributes: features, components or properties of an objeet that can be represented in an information processing system. The attributes which are related to visual features include cognitive and affective answers and elements that describe spatial, semantic, symbolic or emotional features about a photograph. In any case, it is necessary to treat: a) morphological and material attributes (emulsion, state of preservation); b) biographical attributes: (school or trend, publication or exhibition); c) attributes of content: what and how a photograph says something; d) relational attributes: visual documents establish relationships with other documents that can be analysed in order to understand them.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9
    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
  11. Zarri, G.P.: Indexing and querying of narrative documents, a knowledge representation approach (2003) 0.02
    0.023531828 = product of:
      0.047063656 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
        0.03504768 = product of:
          0.07009536 = sum of:
            0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07009536 = score(doc=2691,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    We describe here NKRL (Narrative Knowledge Representation Language), a semantic formalism for taking into account the characteristics of narrative multimedia documents. In these documents, the information content consists in the description of 'events' that relate the real or intended behaviour of some 'actors' (characters, personages, etc.). Narrative documents of an economic interest correspond to news stories, corporate documents, normative and legal texts, intelligence messages, representation of patient's medical records, etc. NKRL is characterised by the use of several knowledge representation principles and several high-level inference tools.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8
    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
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Knowledge organization (KO) (2017) 0.02
    0.023531828 = product of:
      0.047063656 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
        0.03504768 = product of:
          0.07009536 = sum of:
            0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07009536 = score(doc=3418,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between documentoriented views versus request-oriented views. The documentoriented view conceives subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policybased view) understands subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the document's informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the document's potentials of informing users and advancing the development of knowledge.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.1, S.55-64
  13. Sauperl, A.: Subject determination during the cataloging process : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (2002) 0.02
    0.023441838 = product of:
      0.046883676 = sum of:
        0.005149705 = weight(_text_:information in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005149705 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
        0.041733973 = sum of:
          0.021242103 = weight(_text_:organization in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.021242103 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.11817598 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
          0.02049187 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02049187 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050415643 = queryNorm
              0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    27. 9.2005 14:22:19
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...
    This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."
  14. Hutchins, W.J.: ¬The concept of 'aboutness' in subject indexing (1978) 0.02
    0.020887807 = product of:
      0.041775614 = sum of:
        0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01699316 = score(doc=1961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
        0.024782453 = product of:
          0.049564905 = sum of:
            0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049564905 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The common view of the 'aboutness' of documents is that the index entries (or classifications) assigned to documents represent or indicate in some way the total contents of documents; indexing and classifying are seen as processes involving the 'summerization' of the texts of documents. In this paper an alternative concept of 'aboutness' is proposed based on an analysis of the linguistic organization of texts, which is felt to be more appropriate in many indexing environments (particularly in non-specialized libraries and information services) and which has implications for the evaluation of the effectiveness of indexing systems
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.93-97.
  15. Beghtol, C.: Stories : applications of narrative discourse analysis to issues in information storage and retrieval (1997) 0.02
    0.020887807 = product of:
      0.041775614 = sum of:
        0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01699316 = score(doc=5844,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
        0.024782453 = product of:
          0.049564905 = sum of:
            0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049564905 = score(doc=5844,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.2, S.64-71
  16. Beghtol, C.: ¬The classification of fiction : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (1994) 0.02
    0.018399216 = product of:
      0.036798432 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
        0.024782453 = product of:
          0.049564905 = sum of:
            0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049564905 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.3, S.165-167 (W. Bies); JASIS 46(1995) no.5, S.389-390 (E.G. Bierbaum); Canadian journal of information and library science 20(1995) nos.3/4, S.52-53 (L. Rees-Potter)
  17. Campbell, G.: Queer theory and the creation of contextual subject access tools for gay and lesbian communities (2000) 0.02
    0.01680845 = product of:
      0.0336169 = sum of:
        0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 6054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008582841 = score(doc=6054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6054)
        0.025034059 = product of:
          0.050068118 = sum of:
            0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 6054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050068118 = score(doc=6054,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 6054, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6054)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization research has come to question the theoretical distinction between "aboutness" (a document's innate content) and "meaning" (the use to which a document is put). This distinction has relevance beyond Information Studies, particularly in relation to homosexual concerns. Literary criticism, in particular, frequently addresses the question: when is a work "about" homosexuality? This paper explores this literary debate and its implications for the design of subject access systems for gay and lesbian communities. By examining the literary criticism of Herman Melville's Billy Budd, particularly in relation to the theories of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in The Epistemology of the Closet (1990), this paper exposes three tensions that designers of gay and lesbian classifications and vocabularies can expect to face. First is a tension between essentialist and constructivist views of homosexuality, which will affect the choice of terms, categories, and references. Second is a tension between minoritizing and universalizing perspectives on homosexuality. Third is a redefined distinction between aboutness and meaning, in which aboutness refers not to stable document content, but to the system designer's inescapable social and ideological perspectives. Designers of subject access systems can therefore expect to work in a context of intense scrutiny and persistent controversy
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 27(2000) no.3, S.122-131
  18. Hauser, E.; Tennis, J.T.: Episemantics: aboutness as aroundness (2019) 0.02
    0.01680845 = product of:
      0.0336169 = sum of:
        0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008582841 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
        0.025034059 = product of:
          0.050068118 = sum of:
            0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050068118 = score(doc=5640,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.8, S.590-595
  19. Konkova, E.; MacFarlane, A.; Göker, A.: Analysing creative image search information needs (2016) 0.02
    0.016283836 = product of:
      0.032567672 = sum of:
        0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014865918 = score(doc=2833,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
        0.017701752 = product of:
          0.035403505 = sum of:
            0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035403505 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Creative professionals in advertising, marketing, design and journalism search for images to visually represent a concept for their project. The main purpose of this paper is to present search facets derived from an analysis of documents known as briefs, which are widely used in creative industries as requirement documents describing information needs. The briefs specify the type of image required, such as the content and context of use for the image and represent the topic from which the searcher builds an image query. We take three main sources-user image search behaviour, briefs, and image search engine search facets-to examine the search facets for image searching in order to examine the following research question-are search facet schemes for image search engines sufficient for user needs, or is revision needed? We found that there are three main classes of user search facet, which include business, contextual and image related information. The key argument in the paper is that the facet "keyword/tag" is ambiguous and does not support user needs for more generic descriptions to broaden search or specific descriptions to narrow their search-we suggest that a more detailed search facet scheme would be appropriate.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.1, S.13-21
  20. Clavier, V.; Paganelli, C.: Including authorial stance in the indexing of scientific documents (2012) 0.02
    0.015770756 = product of:
      0.03154151 = sum of:
        0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01029941 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 320, 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=320)
        0.021242103 = product of:
          0.042484205 = sum of:
            0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042484205 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 320, 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=320)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article argues that authorial stance should be taken into account in the indexing of scientific documents. Authorial stance has been widely studied in linguistics and is a typical feature of scientific writing that reveals the uniqueness of each author's perspective, their scientific contribution, and their thinking. We argue that authorial stance guides the reading of scientific documents and that it can be used to characterize the knowledge contained in such documents. Our research has previously shown that people reading dissertations are interested both in a topic and in a document's authorial stance. Now, we would like to propose a two-tiered indexing system. Dissertations would first be divided into paragraphs; then, each information unit would be defined by topic and by the markers of authorial stance present in the document.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.4, S.292-299

Languages

  • e 90
  • d 11

Types

  • a 89
  • m 4
  • x 4
  • d 2
  • el 2
  • n 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Classifications