Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Fox, M.J."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Fox, M.J.: Medical discourse's epistemic influence on gender classification in three editions of the Dewey Decimal Classification (2014) 0.01 
    0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1427, 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=1427)
      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
  2. Martínez-Ávila, D.; Chaves Guimarães, J.A.; Pinho, F.A.; Fox, M.J.: ¬The representation of ethics and knowledge organization in the WoS and LISTA databases (2015) 0.01 
    0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17. 2.2018 16:50:22
  3. Fox, M.J.: 'Priorities of arrangement' or a 'hierarchy of oppressions?' : perspectives on intersectionality in knowledge organization (2016) 0.01 
    0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 3174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=3174,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3174, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3174)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The hallmark of Hope Olson's work has been to use a different set of analytical tools to examine our knowledge organization systems from humanistic, feminist, and philosophical angles. These perspectives have led to the uncovering of many instances and types of bias that lead to the marginalization of human groups. An important phenomenon her work has illuminated is intersectionality, a concept that arose from identity studies but has a literal embodiment in knowledge organization environments. Intersectionality describes the transformative, interlocking, and conflicting oppressions that occur when humans belong to more than one identity category. The concept arose with black women (but is not restricted to women) and has since extended to different variables beyond gender and race, such as sexual orientation, national origin, or able-bodiedness. In knowledge organization systems, mutual exclusivity, linearity, and hierarchy prohibit an easy solution for intersectional topics. Topics can be structurally or semantically misrepresented or erased. This article builds upon Olson's research to provide theoretical context from identity studies, further examples from knowledge organization, and describes some of the proposed methods of managing intersectionality.
  4. Fox, M.J.; Reece, A.: Which ethics? Whose morality? : an analysis of ethical standards for information organization (2012) 0.01 
    0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=424,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ethical standards are required at both the individual and system levels of the information organization enterprise, but are those standards the same? For example, are the ethical responsibilities of DDC's editorial board fundamentally the same as for an individual cataloger? And, what are the consequences of decisions made using different ethical frameworks to the users of knowledge organization systems? A selection of ethical theories suitable for evaluating moral dilemmas at all levels in information organization is presented, including utilitarianism, deontology, and pragmatism, as well as the more contemporary approaches of justice, feminist, and Derridean ethics. Finally, a selection of criteria is outlined, taken from the existing ethical frameworks, to use as a starting point for development of an ethical framework specifically for information organization.

Authors

Themes