Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06143835 = product of:
  0.1228767 = sum of:
    0.09246733 = weight(_text_:communication in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09246733 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.47706276 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
    0.030409368 = product of:
      0.060818736 = sum of:
        0.060818736 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060818736 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = 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

0.032363568 = product of:
  0.12945427 = sum of:
    0.12945427 = weight(_text_:communication in 118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12945427 = score(doc=118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.66788787 = fieldWeight in 118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=118)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

The analysis of communication content. Ed.: G. Gerbner et al

0.028312221 = product of:
  0.113248885 = sum of:
    0.113248885 = weight(_text_:communication in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113248885 = score(doc=2347,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.58428013 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - If an information retrieval system is going to be of value to the user then it must give meaning to the information which matches the meaning given to it by the user. The meaning given to music varies according to who is interpreting it - the author/composer, the performer, cataloguer or the listener - and this affects how music is organized and retrieved. This paper aims to examine the meaning of music, how meaning is communicated and suggests this may affect music retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Musicology is used to define music and examine its functions leading to a discussion of how music has been organised and described. Various ways of establishing the meaning of music are reviewed, focussing on established musical analysis techniques. It is suggested that traditional methods are of limited use with digitised popular music. A discussion of semiotics and a review of semiotic analysis in western art music leads to a discussion of semiotics of popular music and examines ideas of Middleton, Stefani and Tagg. Findings - Agreeing that music exists when communication takes place, a discussion of selected communication models leads to the proposal of a revised version of Tagg's model, adjusting it to include listener feedback. Originality/value - The outcome of the analysis is a revised version of Tagg's communication model, adapted to reflect user feedback. It is suggested that this revised communication model reflects the way in which meaning is given to music.

0.024023717 = product of:
  0.09609487 = sum of:
    0.09609487 = weight(_text_:communication in 2576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09609487 = score(doc=2576,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.49577817 = fieldWeight in 2576, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2576)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Argues that the integration of computational psycholinguistics can improve corporate communication, and thus become a new strategic tool. An electronic dictionary was created of basic, neutral and negative connotations for nouns, verbs and adjectives appearing in press releases and other communication media, which can be updated with client specific words. The focus on negative messages has the objective of detecting who, why and how publics are criticized, to learn from the vocabulary of opinion leaders and to improve issues management proactively. Suggests a new form of analysis called 'computational linguistic context analysis' (CLCA) by analyzing nominal groups of negative words, rather than monitoring content analysis in the traditional way. Concludes that CLCA can be used to analyze large quantities of press cuttings about a company and could, theoretically, be used to analyze the structure, language and style of a particular journalist to whom it is planned to send a press release or article

0.019615283 = product of:
  0.07846113 = sum of:
    0.07846113 = weight(_text_:communication in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07846113 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.4048012 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Visual materials represent a significantly different type of communication to textual materials and therefore present distinct challenges for the process of retrieval, especially if by retireval we mean intellectual access to the content of images. This paper outlines the special characteristics of visual materials, focusing on their pontential complexity and subjectivity, and the methods used and explored for gaining access to visual materials as reported in the literature. It concludes that methods of access to visual materials are dominated by the relative mature systems developed for textual materials and that access methods based on visual communication are still largely in the developmental or prototype stage. Although reported research on user requirements in the retrieval of visual information is noticeably lacking, the results of at least one study indicate that the visually-based retrieval methods of structured and unstructered browsing seem to be preferred for visula materials and that effective retrieval methods are ultimately related to characteristics of the enquirer and the visual information sought

0.018493466 = product of:
  0.073973864 = sum of:
    0.073973864 = weight(_text_:communication in 2489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073973864 = score(doc=2489,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3816502 = fieldWeight in 2489, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2489)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers the role of pictures in information communication, comparing the way it conveys information with text. Categorises the purposes of images as conveyors of information: the instructional image, the documentary image, the location image, the graphical representation of numbers, the concepts image, the image making the unseen visible, the image as a surrogate for an object or document, the decorative image, the image as a statement, the strong image and the emotional image. Gives examples of how the value of images is being recognised and of how they can be used well

0.018493466 = product of:
  0.073973864 = sum of:
    0.073973864 = weight(_text_:communication in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073973864 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3816502 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0138701 = product of:
  0.0554804 = sum of:
    0.0554804 = weight(_text_:communication in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0554804 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.0138701 = product of:
  0.0554804 = sum of:
    0.0554804 = weight(_text_:communication in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0554804 = score(doc=4240,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since information science concerns the transmission of records, it concerns context. The transmission of documents ensures their arrival in new contexts. Documents and their copies are spread across times and places. The amount of labor required to discover and retrieve relevant documents is also formulated by context. Thus, any serious consideration of communication and of information technologies quickly leads to a concern with context, relevance, and labor. Information scientists have developed many theories of context, relevance, and labor but not a framework for organizing them and describing their relationship with one another. We propose the words context and relevance can be used to articulate a useful framework for considering the diversity of approaches to context and relevance in information science, as well as their relations with each other and with labor.

0.00693505 = product of:
  0.0277402 = sum of:
    0.0277402 = weight(_text_:communication in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0277402 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.14311883 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.

0.006081873 = product of:
  0.024327492 = sum of:
    0.024327492 = product of:
      0.048654985 = sum of:
        0.048654985 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048654985 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = 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(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.006081873 = product of:
  0.024327492 = sum of:
    0.024327492 = product of:
      0.048654985 = sum of:
        0.048654985 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048654985 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.005375667 = product of:
  0.021502668 = sum of:
    0.021502668 = product of:
      0.043005336 = sum of:
        0.043005336 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043005336 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = 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(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

0.0045614047 = product of:
  0.018245619 = sum of:
    0.018245619 = product of:
      0.036491238 = sum of:
        0.036491238 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036491238 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18

0.0045614047 = product of:
  0.018245619 = sum of:
    0.018245619 = product of:
      0.036491238 = sum of:
        0.036491238 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036491238 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = 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(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0045614047 = product of:
  0.018245619 = sum of:
    0.018245619 = product of:
      0.036491238 = sum of:
        0.036491238 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036491238 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.0022807023 = product of:
  0.009122809 = sum of:
    0.009122809 = product of:
      0.018245619 = sum of:
        0.018245619 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018245619 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = 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(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

0.0015204683 = product of:
  0.006081873 = sum of:
    0.006081873 = product of:
      0.012163746 = sum of:
        0.012163746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012163746 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05