Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05470793 = product of:
  0.10941586 = sum of:
    0.10941586 = product of:
      0.21883172 = sum of:
        0.21883172 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21883172 = score(doc=304,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.6424407 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

0.038684342 = product of:
  0.077368684 = sum of:
    0.077368684 = product of:
      0.15473737 = sum of:
        0.15473737 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15473737 = score(doc=2247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.45427412 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of 'subject' or 'subject matter' in library and information science. Most conceptions of 'subject' in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theorie of 'subject matter' explicit as the first step. ... The different conceptions of 'subject' can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. 'subjective idealism' (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), 'objective idealism' (the rationalistic viewpoint), 'pragmatism' and 'materialism/realism'. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document

0.038684342 = product of:
  0.077368684 = sum of:
    0.077368684 = product of:
      0.15473737 = sum of:
        0.15473737 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15473737 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.45427412 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.

0.038684342 = product of:
  0.077368684 = sum of:
    0.077368684 = product of:
      0.15473737 = sum of:
        0.15473737 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15473737 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.45427412 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses definitions of index and indexing and provides a systematic overview of kinds of indexes. Theories of indexing are reviewed, and the theoretical basis of both manual indexing and automatic indexing is discussed, and a classification of theories is suggested (rationalist, cognitivist, empiricist, and historicist and pragmatist theories). It is claimed that although many researchers do not consider indexing to be a theoretical issue (or consider it to be a field without theories) indexing is indeed highly theory-laden (and the idea of atheoretical indexing is an oxymoron). An important issue is also the subjectivity of the indexer, in particular, her socio-cultural and paradigmatic background, as for example, when authors of documents are the best indexers of their own documents. The article contains a section about the tools available for indexing in the form of the indexing languages and their nature. It is concluded that the social epistemology first proposed by Jesse Shera in 1951 provides the most fruitful theoretical framework for indexing.

0.032236952 = product of:
  0.064473905 = sum of:
    0.064473905 = product of:
      0.12894781 = sum of:
        0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 4651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894781 = score(doc=4651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 4651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is argued that data should be defined as information on properties of units of analysis. Epistemologically it is important to establish that what is considered data by somebody need not be data for somebody else. This article considers the nature of data and "big data" and the relation between data, information, knowledge and documents. It is common for all these concepts that they are about phenomena produced in specific contexts for specific purposes and may be represented in documents, including as representations in databases. In that process, they are taken out of their original contexts and put into new ones and thereby data loses some or all their meaning due to the principle of semantic holism. Some of this lost meaning should be reestablished in the databases and the representations of data/documents cannot be understood as a neutral activity, but as an activity supporting the overall goal implicit in establishing the database. To utilize (big) data (as it is the case with utilizing information, knowledge and documents) demands first of all the identification of the potentials of these data for relevant purposes. The most fruitful theoretical frame for knowledge organization and data science is the social epistemology suggested by Shera (1951). One important aspect about big data is that they are often unintentional traces we leave during all kinds of activities. Their potential to inform somebody about something is therefore less direct compared to data that have been produced intentionally as, for example, scientific databases.

0.032236952 = product of:
  0.064473905 = sum of:
    0.064473905 = product of:
      0.12894781 = sum of:
        0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894781 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).

0.032236952 = product of:
  0.064473905 = sum of:
    0.064473905 = product of:
      0.12894781 = sum of:
        0.12894781 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12894781 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.37856176 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.022794968 = product of:
  0.045589935 = sum of:
    0.045589935 = product of:
      0.09117987 = sum of:
        0.09117987 = weight(_text_:epistemology in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09117987 = score(doc=3013,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34062555 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = queryNorm
            0.2676836 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.8527 = idf(docFreq=126, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It uncovers the main theoretical influences that have affected the representation of art in systems of knowledge organization such as LCC, DDC, UDC and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, and it provides a deep basis for evaluating such systems. Knut Tore Abrahamsen's "Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective" is a modified version of a thesis written at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen. As a thesis it is a major achievement which successfully combines knowledge of music, epistemology, and knowledge organization. This paper may also be seen as an example of how domains can be analyzed and how knowledge organization may be improved in practice. We would like to thank Sanna Talja of the University of Tampere, among other people, for Input an this piece. And now to the rest of the issue: Olof Sundin's "Towards an Understanding of Symbolic Aspects of Professional Information: an Analysis of the Nursing Knowledge Domain" contributes to DA by introducing a deeper understanding of the notion of professions and by uncovering how in some domains, "symbolic" functions of information may be more important than instrumental functions. Rich Gazan's: "Metadata as a Realm of Translation: Merging Knowledge Domains in the Design of an Environmental Information System" demonstrates the problems of merging data collections in interdisciplinary fields, rohen the perceived informational value of different access points varies with disciplinary membership. This is important for the design of systems of metadata. Joe Tennis': "Two Axes of Domains for Domain Analysis" suggests that the notion of domain is underdeveloped in DA. Tennis states, "Hjoerland has provided a hammer, but rohere are the nails?" In addition he raises a question concerning the degree of specialization within a domain. He resolves these issues by proposing two new "axes" to DA. Chaim Zins & David Guttmann's: "Domain Analysis of Social Work: An Example of an Integrated Methodological Approach" represents an empirical approach to the construction of knowledge maps based an representative samples of the literature an social work. In a way, this paper is the most traditional or straightforward approach to knowledge organization in the issue: It suggests a concrete classification based an scientific norms of representation and objectivity.
Hanne Albrechtsen & Annelise Mark Pejtersen's: "Cognitive Work Analysis and Work Centered Design of Classification Schemes" is also based an empirical studies, but focuses an work groups rather than literatures. It claims that deep semantic structures relevant to classification evolve dynamically in work groups. Its empirical method is different from Zins & Guttmann's. Future research must further uncover the relative strengths and weaknesses of literatures versus people in the construction of knowledge organizing systems. Jenna Hartel's: "The Serious Leisure Frontier in Library and Information Science: Hobby Domains" expands DA to the field of "everyday information use" and demonstrates that most of the approaches suggested by Hjoerland (2002a) may also be relevant to this field. Finally, Birger Hjoerland & Jenna Hartel's After-word: Some Basic Issues Related to the Notion of a Domain" suggests that the notions of ontology, epistemology, and sociology may be three fundamental dimensions of domains and that these perspectives may clarify what domains are and the dynamics of their development. While this special issue marks great progress, and the zenith of DA to date, the approach remains emergent and there is still much work to be done. We see the need for ongoing domain analytic research along two paths. Remarkably, to our knowledge no domain has been thoroughly studied in the domain analytic view. The first order, then, is rigorous application of DA to multiple domains. Second, theoretical and methodological gaps presently exist; these are opportunities for creative inventors to contribute original extensions to the approach. We warmly invite all readers to seriously engage with these articles, whether as critics, spectators, or participants in the domain analytic project.

0.011785516 = product of:
  0.023571031 = sum of:
    0.023571031 = product of:
      0.047142062 = sum of:
        0.047142062 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047142062 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = 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

0.011785516 = product of:
  0.023571031 = sum of:
    0.023571031 = product of:
      0.047142062 = sum of:
        0.047142062 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047142062 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = 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

0.010101871 = product of:
  0.020203741 = sum of:
    0.020203741 = product of:
      0.040407483 = sum of:
        0.040407483 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040407483 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = 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

0.008418226 = product of:
  0.016836451 = sum of:
    0.016836451 = product of:
      0.033672903 = sum of:
        0.033672903 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033672903 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = 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

0.008418226 = product of:
  0.016836451 = sum of:
    0.016836451 = product of:
      0.033672903 = sum of:
        0.033672903 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033672903 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = 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

0.008418226 = product of:
  0.016836451 = sum of:
    0.016836451 = product of:
      0.033672903 = sum of:
        0.033672903 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033672903 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = 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

0.004209113 = product of:
  0.008418226 = sum of:
    0.008418226 = product of:
      0.016836451 = sum of:
        0.016836451 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016836451 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17406462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049706765 = 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