Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

0.05793532 = product of:
  0.086902976 = sum of:
    0.06233795 = weight(_text_:digital in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06233795 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20228553 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051282257 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
    0.024565024 = product of:
      0.04913005 = sum of:
        0.04913005 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04913005 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.03324691 = product of:
  0.09974072 = sum of:
    0.09974072 = weight(_text_:digital in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09974072 = score(doc=4707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20228553 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051282257 = queryNorm
        0.493069 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.024975657 = product of:
  0.07492697 = sum of:
    0.07492697 = sum of:
      0.03323875 = weight(_text_:library in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03323875 = score(doc=5589,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051282257 = queryNorm
          0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
      0.041688226 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041688226 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051282257 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.020779317 = product of:
  0.06233795 = sum of:
    0.06233795 = weight(_text_:digital in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06233795 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20228553 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051282257 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper a framework for the construction and organization of knowledge organization and representation languages in the context of digital photograph collections is presented. It analyses exigencies of photographs as documentary objects, as well as several models of indexing, different proposals of languages and a theoretical revision of ontologies in this research field, in relation to visual documents. In considering the photograph as an analysis object, it is appropriate to study all its attributes: features, components or properties of an objeet that can be represented in an information processing system. The attributes which are related to visual features include cognitive and affective answers and elements that describe spatial, semantic, symbolic or emotional features about a photograph. In any case, it is necessary to treat: a) morphological and material attributes (emulsion, state of preservation); b) biographical attributes: (school or trend, publication or exhibition); c) attributes of content: what and how a photograph says something; d) relational attributes: visual documents establish relationships with other documents that can be analysed in order to understand them.

0.0147727765 = product of:
  0.04431833 = sum of:
    0.04431833 = product of:
      0.08863666 = sum of:
        0.08863666 = weight(_text_:library in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08863666 = score(doc=722,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.65734464 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Scandinavian public library quarterly. 11(1978), S.5-12

0.0147727765 = product of:
  0.04431833 = sum of:
    0.04431833 = product of:
      0.08863666 = sum of:
        0.08863666 = weight(_text_:library in 7510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08863666 = score(doc=7510,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.65734464 = fieldWeight in 7510, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library and information science research. 12(1990) no.3, S.251-262

0.014693196 = product of:
  0.044079587 = sum of:
    0.044079587 = weight(_text_:digital in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044079587 = score(doc=2122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20228553 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051282257 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2122)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although images are visual information sources with little or no text associated with them, users still tend to use text to describe images and formulate queries. This is because digital libraries and search engines provide mostly text query options and rely on text annotations for representation and retrieval of the semantic content of images. While the main focus of image research is on indexing and retrieval of individual images, the general topic of image browsing and indexing, and retrieval of groups of images has not been adequately investigated. Comparisons of descriptions of individual images as well as labels of groups of images supplied by users using cognitive models are scarce. This work fills this gap. Using the basic level theory as a framework, a comparison of the descriptions of individual images and labels assigned to groups of images by 180 participants in three studies found a marked difference in their level of abstraction. Results confirm assertions by previous researchers in LIS and other fields that groups of images are labeled using more superordinate level terms while individual image descriptions are mainly at the basic level. Implications for design of image browsing interfaces, taxonomies, thesauri, and similar tools are discussed.

0.014693196 = product of:
  0.044079587 = sum of:
    0.044079587 = weight(_text_:digital in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044079587 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20228553 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051282257 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.

0.01289026 = product of:
  0.03867078 = sum of:
    0.03867078 = sum of:
      0.0247747 = weight(_text_:library in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0247747 = score(doc=1858,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051282257 = queryNorm
          0.18373342 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.013896076 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013896076 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051282257 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.
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)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.011580064 = product of:
  0.03474019 = sum of:
    0.03474019 = product of:
      0.06948038 = sum of:
        0.06948038 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06948038 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.010445932 = product of:
  0.031337794 = sum of:
    0.031337794 = product of:
      0.06267559 = sum of:
        0.06267559 = weight(_text_:library in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06267559 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.53, [=Suppl.16]

0.010445932 = product of:
  0.031337794 = sum of:
    0.031337794 = product of:
      0.06267559 = sum of:
        0.06267559 = weight(_text_:library in 1273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06267559 = score(doc=1273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 1273, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.41, [=Suppl.6]

0.009264051 = product of:
  0.027792152 = sum of:
    0.027792152 = product of:
      0.055584304 = sum of:
        0.055584304 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055584304 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.009264051 = product of:
  0.027792152 = sum of:
    0.027792152 = product of:
      0.055584304 = sum of:
        0.055584304 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055584304 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.006948038 = product of:
  0.020844113 = sum of:
    0.020844113 = product of:
      0.041688226 = sum of:
        0.041688226 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041688226 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.006948038 = product of:
  0.020844113 = sum of:
    0.020844113 = product of:
      0.041688226 = sum of:
        0.041688226 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041688226 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17958173 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0065287068 = product of:
  0.01958612 = sum of:
    0.01958612 = product of:
      0.03917224 = sum of:
        0.03917224 = weight(_text_:library in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03917224 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The article explains content analysis, a method whereby statements taken from oral or written library user comments are labeled as particular speech acts. These speech acts are then categorized into the three behavioral domains: affective, cognitive, and sonsorimotor, ansd used to construct user-based instructional objectives

0.00646309 = product of:
  0.01938927 = sum of:
    0.01938927 = product of:
      0.03877854 = sum of:
        0.03877854 = weight(_text_:library in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877854 = score(doc=236,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.00646309 = product of:
  0.01938927 = sum of:
    0.01938927 = product of:
      0.03877854 = sum of:
        0.03877854 = weight(_text_:library in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877854 = score(doc=5170,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Catalogers' judgment has been frequently mentioned, but rarely has been researched in formal studies. The purpose of this article is to investigate catalogers' judgment through an exploration of the texts collected in the database of Library and Information Science Source. Verbs, adjectives, and nouns intimately associated with catalogers' judgment were extracted, analyzed, and grouped into 16 categories, which lead to 5 conceptual descriptions. The results of this study provide cataloging professionals with an overall picture on aspects of catalogers' judgment, which may help library school students and graduates and novice catalogers to become independent and confident decision makers relating to cataloging work.

0.0056540268 = product of:
  0.01696208 = sum of:
    0.01696208 = product of:
      0.03392416 = sum of:
        0.03392416 = weight(_text_:library in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03392416 = score(doc=4702,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13484047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051282257 = queryNorm
            0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.