Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033387464 = product of:
  0.08346866 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=2358,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A naïve user seeking introductory information on a topic may perceive a domain as it is shown by the search results in a database; however, inconsistencies in indexing can misrepresent the full picture of the domain by including irrelevant documents or omitting relevant ones, sometimes inexplicably. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the domain of ethics in knowledge organization in the World of Science (WoS) and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) databases to discern how it is being presented by search results in those databases and to attempt to determine why inconsistencies occurred.

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.023821492 = product of:
  0.059553728 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 1410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1410)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper aims to study the conceptual dimension of Knowledge Organization (KO) in the ISKO proceedings (1990-2012) domain. After analyzing a corpus of 71 papers that presented the term "knowledge organization" in their titles, using the methodology of Bardin's content analysis, it was possible to obtain a set of 11 definitions of KO which were studied using the following categories: nature, object, tools, processes, and perspectives/approaches. These categories act as a basis to identify the communities of authors that interact in the domain under different conceptual perspectives. The results show that KO has been mainly understood as an area or field of knowledge whose objects are recorded knowledge and conceptual structures, and whose main processes are classification and indexing, as well as information retrieval. The nature of KO is mostly linked to the construction of specialized discourses and the methodological dimension of such area is related to the systematization of recorded scientific knowledge.

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

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 5637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=5637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 5637, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5637)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Despite having the principle of provenance as its guiding element, the archival knowledge organization still prescinds, for conceptual purposes, of greater clarity of its object-the archival knowledge-a fundamental aspect for the sedimentation of the archival studies and of its discursive community in the scope of KO. This article aims to define a conceptual framework to archival knowledge by using Dahlberg's concept theory. In this vein, it established the nominal concept or definiendum-archival knowledge-seeking to analyze its real definition, composed by three inseparable definiens: the concept of fonds, the knowledge of documentary form and the knowledge of document creation context. At the end, it demonstrates that archival knowledge can be defined as being a reunion of three indivisible facets in which the archival bond will be contemplated.

0.0070806327 = product of:
  0.035403162 = sum of:
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 823, 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=823)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Aiming at contributing to the epistemological characterization of the area of knowledge organization, our goal is to analyze the KO journal, since its creation in 1993, as a knowledge domain, from a nuclear community of the most productive and greater impact authors, analyzing the dialogue among citing authors and cited ones, and also the co-citations established by the citing authors. We worked with a corpus of 310 articles published between 1993 and 2011 produced by a total of 360 authors. The relatively more productive authors, a group geographically concentrated in Europe (37%), North America (44%) and Asia (19%), is clearly explained by the historical European origin of the ISKO and by an increasing North American presence along the years. Of the 33 most cited authors, 22 were co-cited in at least 6 works, which suggests that they are the theoretical referential nucleus of the area, in the studied journal. Finally, we observe that the area reveals theme cohesion and coherence in its production, enabling us to clearly visualize its theoretical referential nucleus and to confirm the role performed by the KO magazine as a catalyzing agent of international theoretical construction in the area.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=860,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 860, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=860)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Since its emergence as a discipline, in the nineteenth century (1889), the theory and practice of Archival Science have focused on the arrangement and description of archival materials as complementary and inseparable nuclear processes that aim to classify, to order, to describe and to give access to records. These processes have their specific goals sharing one in common: the representation of archival knowledge. In the late 1980 a paradigm shift was announced in Archival Science, especially after the appearance of the new forms of document production and information technologies. The discipline was then invited to rethink its theoretical and methodological bases founded in the nineteenth century so it could handle the contemporary archival knowledge production, organization and representation. In this sense, the present paper aims to discuss, under a theoretical perspective, the archival representation, more specifically the archival description facing these changes and proposals, in order to illustrate the challenges faced by Contemporary Archival Science in a new context of production, organization and representation of archival knowledge.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 2369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=2369,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 2369, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2369)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper arises from the possibility of a theoretical dialogue between the socio-cognitive perspectives of knowledge organization and the Bakhtinian concepts on conscience, "responsible act," "responsive understanding," and polyphony as attitudes that motivate the dialogism that is inherent to language. Those questions allow us to recognize the professional that organizes and represents knowledge as someone who has an intersubjective conscience, a product composed by two axes that are indeed deeply connected: the "self " and the "other." Therefore, the acts of representing and organizing knowledge are deeply affected by external discourses and by internal discourses. Those different discourses come together at the moment of representing the knowledge and act as a response to the dialogues between the external and the internal discourses. As a consequence, the indexing/ classification codes, terms or signs assume a dialogical and dynamic representativeness in order to correspond not only to the contents of the documents but also to dialogue with a diverse user community, by the recognition of the alterity/otherness of the social actors and the social situations. Finally, it is important to point out the need of an ethical and democratic attitude of the indexer/classifier, in order to represent the social pluralism and show an equipollence of social voices.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=1134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Personal data play a fundamental role in contemporary socioeconomic dynamics, with one of its primary aspects being the potential to facilitate discriminatory situations. This situation impacts the knowledge organization field especially because it considers personal data as elements (facets) to categorize persons under an economic and sometimes discriminatory perspective. The research corpus was collected at Scopus and Web of Science until the end of 2021, under the terms "data discrimination", "algorithmic bias", "algorithmic discrimination" and "fair algorithms". The obtained results allowed to infer that the analyzed knowledge domain predominantly incorporates personal data, whether in its behavioral dimension or in the scope of the so-called sensitive data. These data are susceptible to the action of algorithms of different orders, such as relevance, filtering, predictive, social ranking, content recommendation and random classification. Such algorithms can have discriminatory biases in their programming related to gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, age, social class, socioeconomic profile, physical appearance, and political positioning.