Search (85 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.03
    0.030007377 = product of:
      0.06601623 = sum of:
        0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027335514 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024304248 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.02204492 = weight(_text_:u in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02204492 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.02620087 = weight(_text_:k in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02620087 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27608594 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.012606464 = product of:
          0.025212929 = sum of:
            0.025212929 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025212929 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.45454547 = coord(5/11)
    
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
    Type
    a
  2. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Understandings of language and cognition : implications for classification research (1994) 0.02
    0.024755804 = product of:
      0.06807846 = sum of:
        0.012690932 = product of:
          0.025381863 = sum of:
            0.025381863 = weight(_text_:h in 8884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025381863 = score(doc=8884,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.38429362 = fieldWeight in 8884, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8884)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 8884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005467103 = score(doc=8884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 8884, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8884)
        0.045059573 = weight(_text_:r in 8884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045059573 = score(doc=8884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 8884, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8884)
        0.0048608496 = weight(_text_:s in 8884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0048608496 = score(doc=8884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 8884, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8884)
      0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    
    Pages
    S. -
    Source
    Proceedings of the 5th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, Oct. 16, 1994, Alexandria, VA. Ed.: R. Fidel u.a
    Type
    a
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Fundamentals of knowledge organization (2003) 0.01
    0.010600869 = product of:
      0.03886985 = sum of:
        0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039050733 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
        0.0034720355 = weight(_text_:s in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0034720355 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
        0.031492744 = weight(_text_:u in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031492744 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Pages
    S.83-116
    Source
    Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso
    Type
    a
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Answer to Professor Szostak (concept theory) (2010) 0.01
    0.009186376 = product of:
      0.03368338 = sum of:
        0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0031240587 = score(doc=3323,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
        0.025748327 = weight(_text_:r in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025748327 = score(doc=3323,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
        0.004810994 = weight(_text_:s in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004810994 = score(doc=3323,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.1664486 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Content
    Bezug zu: Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536.
    Footnote
    Erwiderung zu: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1076-1077.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1078-1080
    Type
    a
  5. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The nature of information science and its core concepts (2014) 0.01
    0.008076076 = product of:
      0.044418417 = sum of:
        0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066271294 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
        0.03779129 = weight(_text_:u in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03779129 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
      0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    
    Source
    Theories of information, communication and knowledge : a multidisciplinary approach. Eds.: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan u. T.M. Dousa
    Type
    a
  6. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The phrase "information storage and retrieval" (IS&R) : an historical note (2015) 0.01
    0.007861646 = product of:
      0.028826036 = sum of:
        0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003865826 = score(doc=1853,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
        0.022529786 = weight(_text_:r in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022529786 = score(doc=1853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
        0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024304248 = score(doc=1853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1299-1302
    Type
    a
  7. Hjoerland, B.; Pedersen, K.N.: ¬A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval (2005) 0.01
    0.0069031613 = product of:
      0.025311591 = sum of:
        0.0067637865 = weight(_text_:a in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067637865 = score(doc=1892,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
        0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016092705 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
        0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024550997 = score(doc=1892,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.5, S.582-597
    Type
    a
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Knowledge organization = Information organization? (2012) 0.01
    0.0068283104 = product of:
      0.025037138 = sum of:
        0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040582716 = score(doc=639,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
        0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0020832212 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
        0.018895645 = weight(_text_:u in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018895645 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.
    Pages
    S.8-14
    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
    Type
    a
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998) 0.01
    0.00660989 = product of:
      0.024236264 = sum of:
        0.0153837325 = product of:
          0.030767465 = sum of:
            0.030767465 = weight(_text_:h in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030767465 = score(doc=403,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046860883 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
        0.0041664424 = weight(_text_:s in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041664424 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Erwiderung auf die Rezension des gleichbetitelten Buches des Autors durch G. Wersig in nfd 49(1998) H.1
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126
    Type
    a
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.01
    0.00613131 = product of:
      0.02248147 = sum of:
        0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033818933 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
        0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016092705 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
        0.003006871 = weight(_text_:s in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003006871 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536
    Type
    a
  11. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Bradford's law of scattering : ambiguities in the concept of "subject" (2005) 0.01
    0.0060723023 = product of:
      0.022265108 = sum of:
        0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004782719 = score(doc=157,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
        0.015746372 = weight(_text_:u in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015746372 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.
    Pages
    S.96-106
    Source
    Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven
    Type
    a
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Subject (of documents) (2016) 0.01
    0.0056154616 = product of:
      0.020590026 = sum of:
        0.0027613041 = weight(_text_:a in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027613041 = score(doc=3182,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
        0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016092705 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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 document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand 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 documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.
    Content
    Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.
    Type
    a
  13. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01
    0.005591998 = product of:
      0.020503992 = sum of:
        0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005467103 = score(doc=5237,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
        0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024304248 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
        0.012606464 = product of:
          0.025212929 = sum of:
            0.025212929 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025212929 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.960-965
    Type
    a
  14. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01
    0.00508037 = product of:
      0.018628024 = sum of:
        0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057392623 = score(doc=4359,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
        0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0020832212 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
        0.010805541 = product of:
          0.021611081 = sum of:
            0.021611081 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021611081 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.72-77
    Type
    a
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and subject representation : an activity-theoretical approach to information science (1997) 0.00
    0.004646231 = product of:
      0.01703618 = sum of:
        0.0076918663 = product of:
          0.0153837325 = sum of:
            0.0153837325 = weight(_text_:h in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0153837325 = score(doc=6963,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046860883 = score(doc=6963,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
        0.0046582245 = weight(_text_:s in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046582245 = score(doc=6963,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16116315 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Information science has for a long time been drawing on the knowledge produced in psychology and related fields. This is reasonable, for the central issue in information science concerns individual users navigating information spaces such as libraries, databases, and the Internet, Thus, informations seeking is the fundamental problem in information science, while other problems, such as document representation, are subordinate. This book proposes a general theory of information seeking as a theoretical basis for information science
    Content
    Introduction - information seeking and subject representation - subject searching and subject representation data - subject analysis and knowledge organization - the concept of subject or subject matter and basic epistemological positions - methodological consequences for information science - science, discipline, and subject field as a framework for information seeking - information needs and cognitive and scientific development
    Footnote
    Rez. in: nfd 49(1998) H.1, S.59-60 (G. Wersig), Erwiderung des Autors darauf in nfd: 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126; JASIS 49(1998) no.11, S.1043 (C. Chen); College and research libraries 59(1998) no.3, S.287-288 (P. Wilson)
    Pages
    224 S
  16. Capurro, R.; Hjoerland, B.: ¬The concept of information (2002) 0.00
    0.0043815877 = product of:
      0.016065821 = sum of:
        0.005368588 = weight(_text_:a in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005368588 = score(doc=5079,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.17513901 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
        0.009655623 = weight(_text_:r in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009655623 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.1097206 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
        0.0010416106 = weight(_text_:s in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0010416106 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.036037173 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
    Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411
    Type
    a
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.00
    0.0043381536 = product of:
      0.015906563 = sum of:
        0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0051659266 = score(doc=1096,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
        0.009004618 = product of:
          0.018009236 = sum of:
            0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018009236 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.2, S.98 - 120
    Type
    a
  18. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and knowledge organization : the presentation of a new book (1997) 0.00
    0.004219554 = product of:
      0.015471697 = sum of:
        0.006345466 = product of:
          0.012690932 = sum of:
            0.012690932 = weight(_text_:h in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012690932 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.006695806 = weight(_text_:a in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006695806 = score(doc=310,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
        0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024304248 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.3, S.136-144
    Type
    a
  19. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.00
    0.003994284 = product of:
      0.014645709 = sum of:
        0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039050733 = score(doc=1398,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
        0.009004618 = product of:
          0.018009236 = sum of:
            0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018009236 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    Pages
    S.13
    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
    Type
    a
  20. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.00
    0.0038515988 = product of:
      0.014122529 = sum of:
        0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033818933 = score(doc=629,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
        0.009004618 = product of:
          0.018009236 = sum of:
            0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018009236 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.1, S.11-27
    Type
    a