Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03097736 = product of:
  0.06195472 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 1507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=1507,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1507, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1507)
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 1507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=1507,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 1507, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Builds on work begun in the field of image databases and examines how an analytical framework to describe the contents of images may be extended to deal with film. The project evolved from an analysis of problems related to image retrieval and solutions currently available. A 'levels of meanings' table is being used as an indexing template for image retrieval purposes. An image database offers an opportunity to test the image retrieval innovations on a pilot study. Central to the project is the development of the concept of democratic indexing. Argues that this concept could be used in many types of information retrieval. The information which is to be recorded for each image includes descriptive cataloguing and subject indexing based on user perceptions of the image and objects within the image. The collections of user generated indexes will be used to compile a public index through a process called reconciliation. The ability of individual users to record their private indexes offers a democratic approach to indexing

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd British-Nordic Conference on Library and Information Studies, Edinburgh, 1997. Organized by the British Association for Information and Library Education (BAILER). Ed.: Micheline Beaulieu et al

0.008633038 = product of:
  0.034532152 = sum of:
    0.034532152 = product of:
      0.069064304 = sum of:
        0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069064304 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.

0.0073997467 = product of:
  0.029598987 = sum of:
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Issues regarding interpretation and the locus of meaning in the image sign (objectivist, constructionist or subjectivist) are clearly important in relation to reading images and are well documented in the literature (Svenonius, 1994; Shatford, 1984,1986; Layne, 1994; Enser, 1991, 1995; Rafferty Brown & Hidderley, 1996). The same issues of interpretation and reading pertain to image indexing tools which themselves are the result of choice, design and construction. Indexing becomes constrained and specific when a particular controlled vocabulary is adhered to. Indexing tools can often work better for one type of document than another. In this paper we discuss the different 'flavours' of three image retrieval tools: the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, Iconclass and the Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials.