Search (56 results, page 1 of 3)

0.04451662 = product of:
  0.11129155 = sum of:
    0.05464649 = weight(_text_:it in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05464649 = score(doc=5830,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.36153275 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper examnines various isues that arise in establishing a theoretical basis for an experimental fiction analysis system. It analyzes the warrants of fiction and of works about fiction. From this analysis, it derives classificatory requirements for a fiction system. Classificatory techniques that may contribute to the specification of data elements in fiction are suggested

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.02968728 = product of:
  0.0742182 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=4888,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 4888, 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=4888)
    0.050067633 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050067633 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper centres on the tools for the management of new digital documents, which are not only textual, but also visual-video, audio or multimedia in the full sense. Among the aims is to demonstrate that operating within the terms of generic Information Retrieval through textual language only is limiting, and it is instead necessary to consider ampler criteria, such as those of MultiMedia Information Retrieval, according to which, every type of digital document can be analyzed and searched by the proper elements of language for its proper nature. MMIR is presented as the organic complex of the systems of Text Retrieval, Visual Retrieval, Video Retrieval, and Audio Retrieval, each of which has an approach to information management that handles the concrete textual, visual, audio, or video content of the documents directly, here defined as content-based. In conclusion, the limits of this content-based objective access to documents is underlined. The discrepancy known as the semantic gap is that which occurs between semantic-interpretive access and content-based access. Finally, the integration of these conceptions is explained, gathering and composing the merits and the advantages of each of the approaches and of the systems to access to information.

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

0.02858579 = product of:
  0.07146447 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.01588793 = product of:
  0.03971982 = sum of:
    0.025558555 = weight(_text_:it in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025558555 = score(doc=1858,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.16909146 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.014161265 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014161265 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.
Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.
Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

0.014292895 = product of:
  0.035732236 = sum of:
    0.014490339 = weight(_text_:it in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014490339 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.095865846 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.021241898 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021241898 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.011831312 = product of:
  0.05915656 = sum of:
    0.05915656 = weight(_text_:it in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915656 = score(doc=2347,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.39137068 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - If an information retrieval system is going to be of value to the user then it must give meaning to the information which matches the meaning given to it by the user. The meaning given to music varies according to who is interpreting it - the author/composer, the performer, cataloguer or the listener - and this affects how music is organized and retrieved. This paper aims to examine the meaning of music, how meaning is communicated and suggests this may affect music retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Musicology is used to define music and examine its functions leading to a discussion of how music has been organised and described. Various ways of establishing the meaning of music are reviewed, focussing on established musical analysis techniques. It is suggested that traditional methods are of limited use with digitised popular music. A discussion of semiotics and a review of semiotic analysis in western art music leads to a discussion of semiotics of popular music and examines ideas of Middleton, Stefani and Tagg. Findings - Agreeing that music exists when communication takes place, a discussion of selected communication models leads to the proposal of a revised version of Tagg's model, adjusting it to include listener feedback. Originality/value - The outcome of the analysis is a revised version of Tagg's communication model, adapted to reflect user feedback. It is suggested that this revised communication model reflects the way in which meaning is given to music.

0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.010929298 = product of:
  0.05464649 = sum of:
    0.05464649 = weight(_text_:it in 1353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05464649 = score(doc=1353,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.36153275 = fieldWeight in 1353, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1353)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Wilson argues that the subject of a writing is indetermined, by which he means either it is impossible to say which of two descriptions is 'the' description of the subject of a writing or it is impossible to say if a writing has two subjects rather than one.

0.010691912 = product of:
  0.05345956 = sum of:
    0.05345956 = weight(_text_:it in 3648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05345956 = score(doc=3648,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.3536802 = fieldWeight in 3648, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3648)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

One knows one is in the presence of "theory" when fundamental questions of a "why" nature are asked. Too often it happens that those involved in the design of bibliographic information systems have no time for brooding. It is thus noteworthy when someone appears an the bibliographic scene who troubles to address, and pursue with philosophic rigor, fundamental questions about the way we organize information. Such a person is Patrick Wilson, formerly philosophy professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and since 1965, an the faculty of the School of Library and Information Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Bibliographic control is the central concept of Wilson's book Two Kinds of Power. It is represented as a kind of power-a power over knowledge. That power is of two kinds: descriptive and exploitive. Descriptive power is the power to retrieve all writings that satisfy some "evaluatively neutral" description, for instance, all writings by Hobbes or all writings an the subject of eternat recurrence. Descriptive power is achieved insofar as the items in our bibliographic universe are fitted with descriptions and these descriptions are syndetically related. Exploitive power is a less-familiar concept, but it is more important since it can be used to explain why we attempt to order our bibliographic universe in the first place. Exploitive power is the power to obtain the best textual means to an end. Unlike the concept of descriptive power, that of exploitive power has a normative aspect to it. Someone possessing such power would understand the goal of all bibliographic activity; that is, he would understand the diversity of user purposes and the relativity of what is valuable; he would be omniscient both as a bibliographer and as a psychologist. Since exploitive power is ever out of reach, descriptive power is used as a substitute or approximation for it. How adequate this approximation is is the subject of Wilson's book. The particular chapter excerpted in this volume deals with the adequacy of subject access methods. Cutter's statement that one of the objects of a library catalog is to show what the library has an a given subject is generally accepted, as though it were obvious what "being an a given subject" means. It is far from obvious. Wilson challenges the underlying presumption that for any document a heading can be found that is coextensive with its subject. This presumption implies that there is such a thing as the (singular) subject of a document and that it can be identified. But, as Wilson Shows in his elaborate explication, the notion of "subject" is essentially indeterminate, with the consequence that we are limited in our attempts to achieve either descriptive or exploitive power.

0.009660226 = product of:
  0.04830113 = sum of:
    0.04830113 = weight(_text_:it in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04830113 = score(doc=1590,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31955284 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent papers have called attention to discrepancies in the assignment of LCSH. While philosophical arguments can be made that subject analysis, if not a logical impossibility, at least is point-of-view dependent, subject headings continue to be assigned and continue to be useful. The hypothesis advanced in the present project is that to a considerable degree there is a clear-cut right and wrong to LCSH subject heading assignment. To test the hypothesis, it was postulated that the assignment of a subject heading is correct if it is supported by textual warrant (at least 20% of the book being cataloged is on the topic) and is constructed in accordance with the LoC Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. A sample of 100 books on scientific subjects was used to test the hypothesis

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=5497,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The principle of specificity for subject headings provides a clear advantage to many researchers for the precision it brings to subject searching. However, for some researchers very specific subject headings hinder an efficient and comprehensive search. An appropriate broader heading, especially when made narrower in scope by the addition of subheadings, can benefit researchers by providing generic access to their topic. Assigning both specific and generic subject headings to a work would enhance the subject accessibility for the diverse approaches and research needs of different catalog users. However, it can be difficult for catalogers to assign broader terms consistently to different works and without consistency the gathering function of those terms may not be realized.

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=236,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Librarians have inherited from the print environment a particular way of thinking about subject representation, one based on the conscious identification by librarians of appropriate subject classes and terminology. This conception has played a central role in shaping the profession's characteristic approach to upholding one of its core values: objectivity. It is argued that the social and technological roots of traditional indexing practice are closely intertwined. It is further argued that in traditional library practice objectivity is to be understood as impartiality, and reflects the mediating role that librarians have played in society. The case presented here is not a historical one based on empirical research, but rather a conceptual examination of practices that are already familiar to most librarians.

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 1024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=1024,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 1024, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1024)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper discusses the notion of steps in indexing and reveals that the document-centered approach to indexing is prevalent and argues that the document-centered approach is problematic because it blocks out context-dependent factors in the indexing process. A domain-centered approach to indexing is presented as an alternative and the paper discusses how this approach includes a broader range of analyses and how it requires a new set of actions from using this approach; analysis of the domain, users and indexers. The paper concludes that the two-step procedure to indexing is insufficient to explain the indexing process and suggests that the domain-centered approach offers a guide for indexers that can help them manage the complexity of indexing.

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=3418,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between documentoriented views versus request-oriented views. The documentoriented view conceives subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policybased view) understands subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the document's informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the document's potentials of informing users and advancing the development of knowledge.

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article describes multiple experiments in text mining at Northern Illinois University that were undertaken to improve the efficiency and accuracy of cataloging. It focuses narrowly on subject analysis of dime novels, a format of inexpensive fiction that was popular in the United States between 1860 and 1915. NIU holds more than 55,000 dime novels in its collections, which it is in the process of comprehensively digitizing. Classification, keyword extraction, named-entity recognition, clustering, and topic modeling are discussed as means of assigning subject headings to improve their discoverability by researchers and to increase the productivity of digitization workflows.

0.008945494 = product of:
  0.04472747 = sum of:
    0.04472747 = weight(_text_:it in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04472747 = score(doc=133,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.29591006 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is vital for library and information science to understand the subject indexing process thoroughly. However, document analysis, the first and most important step in indexing, has not received sufficient attention. As this is an exceptionally hard problem, we still do not dispose of a sound indexing theory. Therefore we have difficulties in teaching indexing and in explaining why a given subject representation is "better" than another. Technological advancements have not helped to close this fundamental gap. To proceed, we should ask the right questions instead. Several types of indexer inconsistencies can be explained as acceptable, yet different conceptualizations which resulting of the variety of groups dealing with a problem from their respective viewpoints. Multiple indexed documents are regarded as the normal case. Intersubjectively replicable indexing results are often questionable or do not constitute interesting cases of indexing at all. In the context of my ongoing dissertation in which I intend to develop an enhanced indexing theory by investigating improvements within a social sciences domain, this paper explains user-oriented selective depth analysis and why I chose that configuration. Strongly influenced by Mai's dissertation, I also communicate my first insights concerning current indexing theories. I agree that I cannot ignore epistemological stances and philosophical issues in language and meaning related to indexing and accept the openness of the interpretive nature of the indexing process. Although I present arguments against the employment of an indexing language as well, it is still indispensable in situations which demand easier access and control by devices. Despite the enormous difficulties the user-oriented and selective depth analysis poses, I argue that it is both feasible and useful if one achieves careful guidance of the possible interpretations. There is some hope because the number of useful interpretations is limited: Every summary is tailored to a purpose, audience and situation. Domain, discourse and social practice entail additional constraints. A pluralistic method mix that focusses on ecologically valid, holistic contexts and employs qualitative methods is recommended. Domain analysis urgently has to be made more practical and applicable. Only then we will be able to investigate empirically domains in order to identify their structures shaped by the corresponding discourse communities. We plan to represent the recognized problem structures and indexing questions of relevance to a small domain in formal, ontological computer models -- if we can find such stable knowledge structures. This would allow us to tailor dynamically summaries for user communities. For practical purposes we suggest to assume a less demanding position than Hjorland's "totality of the epistemological potential". It is sufficent that we identify and represent iteratively the information needs of today's user groups in interactive knowledge-based systems. The best way to formalize such knowledge gained about discourse communities is however unknown. Indexers should stay in direct contact with the community they serve or be part of it to ensure agreement with their viewpoints. Checklist/request-oriented indexing could be very helpful but it remains to be demonstrated how well it will be applicable in the social sciences. A frame-based representation or at least a sophisticated grouping of terms could help to express relational knowledge structures. There remains much work to do since in practice no one has shown yet how such an improved indexing system would work and if the indexing results were really "better".

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
  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