-
Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002)
0.04
0.03534431 = product of:
0.14137724 = sum of:
0.14137724 = sum of:
0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09813381 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = queryNorm
0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
0.04324343 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04324343 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
- Date
- 21. 7.2006 14:11:22
-
Hjoerland, B.: Terminology (2023)
0.02
0.021246593 = product of:
0.084986374 = sum of:
0.084986374 = product of:
0.16997275 = sum of:
0.16997275 = weight(_text_:terminology in 1122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16997275 = score(doc=1122,freq=6.0), product of:
0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = queryNorm
0.70665586 = fieldWeight in 1122, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1122)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This article introduces the field of terminology, which often considers the Austrian engineer Eugen Wüster as its founder in the 1930s, although important principles go back in time, in particular to 18th and 19th century botanists, zoologists and chemists. The contributions of Wüster are presented, as well as the alternative theories, with their criticism of Wüster's position, which came to influence the field after 1990. The article further suggests that domain-analytic studies based on epistemological studies of knowledge domains seems to have been overlooked. The relations between terminology and knowledge organization are addressed, and closer cooperation between the two fields is called for.
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009)
0.01
0.012622967 = product of:
0.05049187 = sum of:
0.05049187 = sum of:
0.03504779 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03504779 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = queryNorm
0.14570998 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
0.015444082 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015444082 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- "This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 18:13:27
-
Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004)
0.01
0.008761947 = product of:
0.03504779 = sum of:
0.03504779 = product of:
0.07009558 = sum of:
0.07009558 = weight(_text_:terminology in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07009558 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = queryNorm
0.29141995 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.01
0.005405429 = product of:
0.021621715 = sum of:
0.021621715 = product of:
0.04324343 = sum of:
0.04324343 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04324343 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Pages
- S.22-36
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011)
0.00
0.0046332246 = product of:
0.018532898 = sum of:
0.018532898 = product of:
0.037065797 = sum of:
0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037065797 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 17. 3.2011 19:22:55
-
Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013)
0.00
0.0038610206 = product of:
0.015444082 = sum of:
0.015444082 = product of:
0.030888164 = sum of:
0.030888164 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030888164 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 2.2013 11:49:13
-
Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014)
0.00
0.0038610206 = product of:
0.015444082 = sum of:
0.015444082 = product of:
0.030888164 = sum of:
0.030888164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030888164 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = 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)
0.25 = 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
-
Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022)
0.00
0.0038610206 = product of:
0.015444082 = sum of:
0.015444082 = product of:
0.030888164 = sum of:
0.030888164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030888164 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045596033 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 18.11.2023 13:47:22
