Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02748202 = product of:
  0.10992808 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 7728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=7728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 7728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7728)
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 7728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=7728,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 7728, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7728)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This article reports research that used descriptor subfields in MLA Bibliography online to quantify literary warrant in the domain of scholarly work about fiction (i.e., 'fiction studies'). The research used Hulme's concept of literary warrant and Kernan's description of the interactive processes of literature and literary scholarship to justify quantifying existing subject indexing in existing bibliographic records as a first step in the domain analysis of a field. It was found that certain of the MLA Bibliography onle's descriptor subfields and certain of the descriptor terms within those subfields occured more often than would occur by chance. The techniques used in the research might be extended to domain analysis of other fields. Use of the methodology might improve the ability to evaluate existing and to design future subject access systems

0.012055123 = product of:
  0.048220493 = sum of:
    0.029618902 = weight(_text_:case in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029618902 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17000891 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
    0.018601589 = product of:
      0.037203178 = sum of:
        0.037203178 = weight(_text_:area in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037203178 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19053608 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

0.008626453 = product of:
  0.06901162 = sum of:
    0.06901162 = weight(_text_:studies in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06901162 = score(doc=666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43643627 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary field of information studies requires an eclectic and imaginative curriculum. Future information professionals need intellectual tools that will enable them to adapt to changed social and technological environments. In this situation, the study of classification, including both principles application for current bibliographic systems and principles of construction that could be used to develop new systems for bibliographic and non bibliographic materials, is one way to equip students with the balanced flexibility to adapt to changing needs. Knowledge of the organization of knowledge is basic to any kind of information work

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 2217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=2217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2217)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Undiscovered public knowledge is a relatively unstudied phenomenon, and the few extended examples that have been published are intradisciplinary. This paper presents the concept of 'facet' as an example of interdisciplinary undiscovered public knowledge. 'Facets' were central to the bibliographic classification theory of S.R. Ranganathan in India and to the behavioural research of L. Guttman in Israel. The term had the same meaning in both fields, and the concept was developed and exploited at about the same time in both, but two separate, unconnected literatures grew up around the term and its associated concepts. This paper examines the origins and parallel uses of the concept and the term in both fields as a case study of interdisciplinary knowledge that could have been, but was apparantly not, doscovered any time between the aerly 1950s and the present using simple, readily available information retrieval techniques

0.006099823 = product of:
  0.048798583 = sum of:
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 1297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=1297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 1297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1297)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Imprint

Alberta : Alberta University, School of Library and Information Studies

0.0060372595 = product of:
  0.048298076 = sum of:
    0.048298076 = weight(_text_:studies in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048298076 = score(doc=3965,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30544177 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

"1. Iter: Gateway to the Middle Ages and Renaissance Iter is a non-profit research project dedicated to providing electronic access to all kinds and formats of materials pertaining to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700). Iter began in 1995 as a joint initiative of the Renaissance Society of America (RSA) in New York City and the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS), Univ. of Toronto. By 1997, three more partners had joined: Faculty of Information Studies (FIS), Univ. of Toronto; Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS), Arizona State Univ. at Tempe; and John P. Robarts Library, Univ. of Toronto. Iter was funded initially by the five partners and major foundations and, since 1998, has offered low-cost subscriptions to institutions and individuals. When Iter becomes financially self-sufficient, any profits will be used to enhance and expand the project. Iter databases are housed and maintained at the John P. Robarts Library. The interface is a customized version of DRA WebZ. A new interface using DRA Web can be searched now and will replace the DRA WebZ interface shortly. Iter was originally conceived as a comprehensive bibliography of secondary materials that would be an alternative to the existing commercial research tools for its period. These were expensive, generally appeared several years late, had limited subject indexing, were inconsistent in coverage, of uneven quality, and often depended an fragile networks of volunteers for identification of materials. The production of a reasonably priced, web-based, timely research tool was Iter's first priority. In addition, the partners wanted to involve graduate students in the project in order to contribute to the scholarly training and financial support of future scholars of the Middle Ages and Renaissance and to utilize as much automation as possible."

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=3021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Bibliographic classification systems purport to organize the world of knowledge for information storage and retrieval purposes in libraries and bibliographies, both manual and online. The major systems that have predominated during the 20th century were originally predicated on the academic disciplines. This structural principle is no longer adequate because multidisciplinray knowledge production has overtaken more traditional disciplinary perspectives and produced communities of cooperation whose documents cannot be accomodated in a disciplinary structure. This paper addresses the problems the major classifications face, reports some attempts to revise these systems to accomodate multidisciplinary works more appropriately, and describes some theoretical research perspectives that attempt to reorient classification research toward the pluralistic needs of multidisciplinary knowledge creation and the perspectives of different discourse communities. Traditionally, the primary desiderata of classification systems were mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity. The need to respond to multidisciplinary research may mean that hospitality will replace mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity as the most needed and useful characteristics of classification systems in both theory and practice

0.0026845017 = product of:
  0.021476014 = sum of:
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0016778135 = product of:
  0.013422508 = sum of:
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Pages

S.19-22