Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029902441 = product of:
  0.119609766 = sum of:
    0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119609766 = score(doc=3113,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A longstanding area of study in indexing is the identification of factors affecting vocabulary usage and consistency. This topic has seen a recent resurgence with a focus on social tagging. Tagging data for scholarly articles made available by the social bookmarking Website CiteULike (www.citeulike.org) were used to test the use of inter-indexer/tagger consistency density values, based on a method developed by the authors by comparing calculations for highly tagged documents representing three subject areas (Science, Social Science, Social Software). The analysis revealed that the developed method is viable for a large dataset. The findings also indicated that there were no significant differences in tagging consistency among the three topic areas, demonstrating that vocabulary usage in a relatively new subject area like social software is no more inconsistent than the more established subject areas investigated. The implications of the method used and the findings are discussed.

Theme

Social tagging

0.020346032 = product of:
  0.08138413 = sum of:
    0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08138413 = score(doc=4702,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The social and cultural influences on classification are evident in both the content and structure of classifications. In content, warrant, the basis on which content is determined, is most significant. Warrant is related to the purpose of the classification and has varied historically from the classical Greeks to the present. Warrant, whether it be what is written or published on a topic, what is taught, natural phenomena, or other factors is susceptible to all of the biases of the society that produces a classification. Biases of race, gender, orientation, geography, culture, language, and other factors are well-documented in relation to bibliographic classification. Bias occurs not only as a result of the warrant that determines content, but also as a result of classificatory structure. Classificatory structure may be culturally specific and the hierarchy typical of western classificatory structure can convey social influence through hierarchical force, ghettoization, and diasporization. Jesse Shera suggests the social importance of librarians and their role in classification. Combining Shera's theoretical stance with the historical/philosophical record and the empirical evidence of numerous studies in bibliographic classification, the link between society and classification is robust and of significance to the field of library and information science.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classifications are bounded systems that marginalize some groups and topics by locating them in ghettoes, diasporized across the system. Other marginalized groups and topics are totally excluded from these systems, being outside of their territorial limits. Because classifications are locational systems, spatial analyses borrowed from various disciplines have potential to identify and address their problems. The philosophical basis for the analysis in this article is Lorraine Code's (1995) conception of "rhetorical spaces" as sites where topics can be taken seriously as legitimate subjects for open discussion. In existing classifications, there is rhetorical space for most mainstream social and scholarly knowledge domains but not for marginalized knowledge domains. Geography offers concepts for building a theoretical framework to ameliorate the biases of classification. This article describes such a framework and how it is applied using techniques such as Gillian Rose's (1993) "paradoxical spaces," which are simultaneously or alternately in the center and at the margin, same and other, inside and outside to develop a more complex and meaningful classification for women and other marginalized groups. The project described here operationalizes these theoretical openings by applying them to the Dewey Decimal Classification as both critique and as techniques for change.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to examine interindexer consistency on a larger scale than other studies have done to determine if group consensus is reached by larger numbers of indexers and what, if any, relationships emerge between assigned terms. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 64 MLIS students were recruited to assign up to five terms to a document. The authors applied basic data modeling and the exploratory statistical techniques of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis to determine whether relationships exist in indexing consistency and the coocurrence of assigned terms. Findings - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms to a document follows an inverse shape, although it is not strictly power law-based unlike many other social phenomena. The exploratory techniques revealed that groups of terms clustered together. The resulting term cooccurrence relationships were largely syntagmatic. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on the indexing of one article by non-expert indexers and are, thus, not generalizable. Based on the study findings, along with the growing popularity of folksonomies and the apparent authority of communally developed information resources, communally developed indexes based on group consensus may have merit. Originality/value - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms has been studied primarily on a small scale. Few studies have examined indexing on a larger scale with more than a handful of indexers. Recognition of the differences in indexing assignment has implications for the development of public information systems, especially those that do not use a controlled vocabulary and those tagged by end-users. In such cases, multiple access points that accommodate the different ways that users interpret content are needed so that searchers may be guided to relevant content despite using different terminology.

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1443, 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=1443)
      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

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22