Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.07
    0.07434991 = product of:
      0.14869982 = sum of:
        0.14869982 = sum of:
          0.11424282 = weight(_text_:policy in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.11424282 = score(doc=1096,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05086421 = queryNorm
              0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
          0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03445699 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05086421 = 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)
    
    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
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Subject (of documents) (2016) 0.02
    0.02019547 = product of:
      0.04039094 = sum of:
        0.04039094 = product of:
          0.08078188 = sum of:
            0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08078188 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = queryNorm
                0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  3. Capurro, R.; Hjoerland, B.: ¬The concept of information (2002) 0.01
    0.012117281 = product of:
      0.024234561 = sum of:
        0.024234561 = product of:
          0.048469122 = sum of:
            0.048469122 = weight(_text_:policy in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048469122 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = queryNorm
                0.17772134 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    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).
  4. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01
    0.012059947 = product of:
      0.024119893 = sum of:
        0.024119893 = product of:
          0.048239786 = sum of:
            0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048239786 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = 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
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01
    0.012059947 = product of:
      0.024119893 = sum of:
        0.024119893 = product of:
          0.048239786 = sum of:
            0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048239786 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = 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
  6. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01
    0.010337097 = product of:
      0.020674193 = sum of:
        0.020674193 = product of:
          0.041348387 = sum of:
            0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041348387 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = 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
  7. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.01
    0.008614248 = product of:
      0.017228495 = sum of:
        0.017228495 = product of:
          0.03445699 = sum of:
            0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03445699 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = 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
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.01
    0.008614248 = product of:
      0.017228495 = sum of:
        0.017228495 = product of:
          0.03445699 = sum of:
            0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03445699 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  9. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.00
    0.004307124 = product of:
      0.008614248 = sum of:
        0.008614248 = product of:
          0.017228495 = sum of:
            0.017228495 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017228495 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05086421 = 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