Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034380026 = product of:
  0.06876005 = sum of:
    0.06876005 = sum of:
      0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03800752 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030752534 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)

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.

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

0.019749286 = product of:
  0.03949857 = sum of:
    0.03949857 = product of:
      0.07899714 = sum of:
        0.07899714 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07899714 = score(doc=552,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The term 'the bibliographic paradigm' is used in the literature of library and information science, but is a very seldom term and is almost always negatively described. This paper reconsiders this concept. Method. The method is mainly 'analytical'. Empirical data concerning the current state of the UDC-classification system are also presented in order to illuminate the connection between theory and practice. Analysis. The bibliographic paradigm is understood as a perspective in library and information science focusing on documents and information resources, their description, organization, mediation and use. This perspective is examined as one among other metatheories of library and information science and its philosophical assumptions and implications are outlined. Results. The neglect and misunderstanding of 'the bibliographic paradigm' as well as the quality of the new UDC-classification indicate that both the metatheoretical discourses on library and information science and its concrete practice seem to be in a state of crisis.

0.016457738 = product of:
  0.032915477 = sum of:
    0.032915477 = product of:
      0.06583095 = sum of:
        0.06583095 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06583095 = score(doc=1131,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=6391,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge

0.011402255 = product of:
  0.02280451 = sum of:
    0.02280451 = product of:
      0.04560902 = sum of:
        0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04560902 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

0.011402255 = product of:
  0.02280451 = sum of:
    0.02280451 = product of:
      0.04560902 = sum of:
        0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04560902 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses the different meanings of 'keyword' and related terms such as 'keyphrase', 'descriptor', 'index term', 'subject heading', 'tag' and 'n-gram' and suggests definitions of each of these terms. It further illustrates a classification of keywords, based on how they are produced or who is the actor generating them and present comparison between author-assigned keywords, indexer-assigned keywords and reader-assigned keywords as well as the automatic generation of keywords. The article also considers the functions of keywords including the use of keywords for generating bibliographic indexes. The theoretical view informing the article is that the assignment of a keyword to a text, picture or other document involves an interpretation of the document and an evaluation of the document's potentials for users. This perspective is important for both manually assigned keywords and for automated generation and is opposed to a strong tendency to consider a set of keywords as ideally presenting one best representation of a document for all requests.

0.010763386 = product of:
  0.021526773 = sum of:
    0.021526773 = product of:
      0.043053545 = sum of:
        0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043053545 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.010763386 = product of:
  0.021526773 = sum of:
    0.021526773 = product of:
      0.043053545 = sum of:
        0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043053545 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-36

0.00950188 = product of:
  0.01900376 = sum of:
    0.01900376 = product of:
      0.03800752 = sum of:
        0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03800752 = score(doc=388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=388)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine challenges facing bibliographic classification at both the practical and theoretical levels. At the practical level, libraries are increasingly dispensing with classifying books. At the theoretical level, many researchers, managers, and users believe that the activity of "classification" is not worth the effort, as search engines can be improved without the heavy cost of providing metadata. Design/methodology/approach - The basic issue in classification is seen as providing criteria for deciding whether A should be classified as X. Such decisions are considered to be dependent on the purpose and values inherent in the specific classification process. These decisions are not independent of theories and values in the document being classified, but are dependent on an interpretation of the discourses within those documents. Findings - At the practical level, there is a need to provide high-quality control mechanisms. At the theoretical level, there is a need to establish the basis of each decision, and to change the philosophy of classification from being based on "standardisation" to being based on classifications tailored to different domains and purposes. Evidence-based practice provides an example of the importance of classifying documents according to research methods. Originality/value - Solving both the practical (organisational) and the theoretical problems facing classification is necessary if the field is to survive both as a practice and as an academic subject within library and information science. This article presents strategies designed to tackle these challenges.

0.00950188 = product of:
  0.01900376 = sum of:
    0.01900376 = product of:
      0.03800752 = sum of:
        0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03800752 = score(doc=2124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant 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.

0.00950188 = product of:
  0.01900376 = sum of:
    0.01900376 = product of:
      0.03800752 = sum of:
        0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03800752 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.

0.00922576 = product of:
  0.01845152 = sum of:
    0.01845152 = product of:
      0.03690304 = sum of:
        0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03690304 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0076881335 = product of:
  0.015376267 = sum of:
    0.015376267 = product of:
      0.030752534 = sum of:
        0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030752534 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0076881335 = product of:
  0.015376267 = sum of:
    0.015376267 = product of:
      0.030752534 = sum of:
        0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030752534 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.0038440668 = product of:
  0.0076881335 = sum of:
    0.0076881335 = product of:
      0.015376267 = sum of:
        0.015376267 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015376267 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27