Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.046670604 = product of:
  0.11667651 = sum of:
    0.060152818 = weight(_text_:wide in 5521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060152818 = score(doc=5521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5521)
    0.056523696 = weight(_text_:web in 5521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056523696 = score(doc=5521,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 5521, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5521)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Education is a culturally and politically branded domain of knowledge and practice, and education specialists have traditionally remained somewhat isolated, communicating mainly on the general level of "basic educational principles." The expansion of the World Wide Web could change this situation; there exist on the Web a substantial number of education-related resources which have become accessible to international audiences. In this paper, the authors look at how these resources are organized with a view to answering two questions: (1) In a context of global exchanges, are education-related resources available on the Web organized in such a way as to maximize efficiency of identification and retrieval? (2) In virtual libraries with specialized collections on education, do categorization schemes and terminology reflect anything other than local perspectives and systems?

0.015229187 = product of:
  0.07614593 = sum of:
    0.07614593 = weight(_text_:web in 746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07614593 = score(doc=746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=746)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.012502866 = product of:
  0.06251433 = sum of:
    0.06251433 = sum of:
      0.024940113 = weight(_text_:research in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024940113 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 1468, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1468)
      0.037574213 = weight(_text_:22 in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037574213 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1468, 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=1468)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In a research project focusing on knowledge organization and classification education, 407 learning objectives proposed in courses entirely or partially dedicated to these subjects in North American Library and Information Science programs were categorized with the help of the Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy of cognitive objectives. The analysis reveals that the vast majority of course objectives remain at the lower levels of the Taxonomy. These results tend to reinforce observations made over the past 30 years in relation to KO and classification education. While KO and classification educators recognize the necessity for students to develop high-level analytic and evaluative skills, there are few references to those skills in current course objectives.

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

0.01230704 = product of:
  0.061535202 = sum of:
    0.061535202 = weight(_text_:web in 3958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061535202 = score(doc=3958,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3958, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3958)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Introduction to various classificatory structures currently used to organize and make collections of Web-based resources in education more accessible to educators, education specialists, and the general public. Presentation of other models which could also be useful.

0.009230281 = product of:
  0.046151403 = sum of:
    0.046151403 = weight(_text_:web in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046151403 = score(doc=116,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 116, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=116)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Because of the nature, number, and extreme mobility of resources available on electronic networks, access instruments that will allow information seekers to find relevant Web pages or sites are essential. While virtual libraries without clear collection development policies continue to be established, ad hoc knowledge organization schemes also continue to be conceived and implemented; these so-called innovative classification tools are generally structured around loose categories representing a mix of disciplines, subjects, forms of presentation, and audiences. This paper discusses a few examples of Web-based organization schemes, suggesting that their degree of intuitiveness, user-friendliness and efficiency is very possibly overrated

0.009230281 = product of:
  0.046151403 = sum of:
    0.046151403 = weight(_text_:web in 4391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046151403 = score(doc=4391,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4391, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4391)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Results of a project focusing on six Web-based collections in education. Our analysis of homegrown classification structures considers three dimensions. "Structure" is described through quantitative data (e.g. Number of main categories, Number of hierarchical levels, etc.). "Logic" concentrates on two aspects of the subdividing process: division principle, and type of hierarchical relation. "Semantics" relates to concepts and their representation in the form of terms. In our sample, the classification structures are hierarchical, not overly complex and not very specific. The choice, arrangement and sequence of classes are logical. Conceptual and terminological inconsistencies are due to significant gaps in conceptual coverage and lack of terminological control.

0.0058193593 = product of:
  0.029096797 = sum of:
    0.029096797 = product of:
      0.058193594 = sum of:
        0.058193594 = weight(_text_:research in 2967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058193594 = score(doc=2967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 2967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

Classification research

0.004702753 = product of:
  0.023513764 = sum of:
    0.023513764 = product of:
      0.04702753 = sum of:
        0.04702753 = weight(_text_:research in 2107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04702753 = score(doc=2107,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 2107, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.0035270646 = product of:
  0.017635323 = sum of:
    0.017635323 = product of:
      0.035270646 = sum of:
        0.035270646 = weight(_text_:research in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035270646 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Five controlled vocabularies currently used for content representation in collections of non art moving images were examined to determine their level of conceptual compatibility. Methods borrowed from previous research in the area of indexing language compatibility were used. Quantitative data and qualitative observations allowed us to estimate more precisely and realistically the actual degree of conceptual redundancy in these indexing languages. It was found that the conceptual overlap is high enough to justify the pursuit of research and development work an a common basic indexing and access language that could be used to name objects, events, categories of persons, and relations most frequently depicted in non art moving image collections.

0.0033253485 = product of:
  0.016626742 = sum of:
    0.016626742 = product of:
      0.033253483 = sum of:
        0.033253483 = weight(_text_:research in 5193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033253483 = score(doc=5193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 5193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A model for standardizing existing definitions and/or writing new definitions for thesaurus descriptors has been developed, within the framework of a research project concerned with the usefulness of terminological definitions for indexers working with a thesaurus. The proposed model is an expansion of a model presented by Sager and L'Homme in 1994. Examples of its application in a thesaurus describing the field of Adult literacy programming and training are introduced

0.0033253485 = product of:
  0.016626742 = sum of:
    0.016626742 = product of:
      0.033253483 = sum of:
        0.033253483 = weight(_text_:research in 4741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033253483 = score(doc=4741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 4741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.0029096797 = product of:
  0.014548399 = sum of:
    0.014548399 = product of:
      0.029096797 = sum of:
        0.029096797 = weight(_text_:research in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029096797 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to papers read at the 1996 Electronic Access to Fiction research seminar at Copenhagen, Denmark

0.002078343 = product of:
  0.010391714 = sum of:
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Most moving image collections have existed for less than a century, and as we enter the new millennium we observe that the organisation of these collections is still characterized by ad hoc practices. An important stream of research in this area focuses on high-level access to images using methods from library and information science, and using text to create information useful for retrieval. It has been established that common names for objects seen in the image are the key to retrieval in such collections. On a day-to-day basis, those responsible for collection management build indexing vocabularies, creating terms as necessary, and often structuring them loosely into a thesaurus. Discussions with moving image collection librarians have led us to believe that there may be an optimal number of common names a thesaurus for managing general collections of moving images should contain, and that the terms may even be the same from one thesaurus to the next. In this paper, we describe the methodology adopted for studying this question, and report preliminary results

0.0016626742 = product of:
  0.008313371 = sum of:
    0.008313371 = product of:
      0.016626742 = sum of:
        0.016626742 = weight(_text_:research in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016626742 = score(doc=2730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.12608525 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).