Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010327483 = product of:
  0.020654965 = sum of:
    0.020654965 = product of:
      0.04130993 = sum of:
        0.04130993 = weight(_text_:classification in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04130993 = score(doc=1590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Advances in classification research, vol.10: proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. Ed.: Albrechtsen, H. u. J.E. Mai

0.010223686 = product of:
  0.020447372 = sum of:
    0.020447372 = product of:
      0.040894743 = sum of:
        0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 5621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040894743 = score(doc=5621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2002) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx

0.0073026326 = product of:
  0.014605265 = sum of:
    0.014605265 = product of:
      0.02921053 = sum of:
        0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 2682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02921053 = score(doc=2682,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2682, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The new electronic environments pose a threat and challenge to the theory and practice of knowledge organization. Documents can be approached in electronic retrieval activities in ways not dependent an 'classical' knowledge organization activities such as indexing or classification. Accordingly, an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization in the new electronic environments must show that knowledge organization is worth pursuing and that it is a valuable support to users of information retrieval (IR) systems. In this paper the qualitative difference of knowledge organization and its role in scholarly communication is framed as a question of ascribing cognitive authority to documents. The concem is to examine and discuss how and to what extent knowledge organization as an epistemic instrument in scholarly communication can contribute to ascribe cognitive authority to scholarly documents. The paper is structured in the following way. Initially, a brief examination of the appearance of cognitive authority in knowledge organization, and how that affects an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization shall be presented. Secondly, the theoretical approach will be outlined and discussed. Then the empirical analysis applying the theory will be presented. The last part will point to the benefits, limitations, and possibilities of the proposed theoretical approach in relation to the conception of knowledge organization as an epistemic activity in scholarly communication.

0.007229238 = product of:
  0.014458476 = sum of:
    0.014458476 = product of:
      0.028916951 = sum of:
        0.028916951 = weight(_text_:classification in 2998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028916951 = score(doc=2998,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17416364 = fieldWeight in 2998, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Literary critics are reviewing and critiquing works of fiction. But where, one may ask, are the critics of the functionality and legitimacy of knowledge organization systems? That is, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias or search engines - all systems that mediate culture. In this paper I will argue for a conception of the librarian as an information critic. Starting with a critique of the lack of an information critic, I shall next pinpoint what such an information critic ought to look like, why it is needed and how the modern librarian may fulfill this task. Librarians, and librarianship in general, have always had a paradoxical self-understanding. On the one hand, they have seen themselves as promoters of, for instance, democracy, free access to information, civil courage and literacy. On the other hand, librarians have usually portrayed themselves as neutral agents in social and cultural communication. That is, librarians claim they make a difference but are neutral with regard to how this difference is to be understood. The lack of active and critical librarians implies that they cannot be seen as advocates of democracy because democracy as a historical category demands constant analysis and critique in order to be evolving and stable.
That part of society that matters to librarians is the one where knowledge and information, materialized in a variety of genres, are circulating and what role knowledge organization systems have in relation to these. Constructing a public consciousness about this issue requires librarians to participate in the public sphere and discuss and justify why knowledge organization systems such as, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias or search engines, and the functionality of these, matter to the public, that is, to argue how such systems make a difference. Librarians can and should actively do this by acting as critics of society's textually mediated communication structures. This is much more than merely `evaluating', for instance, databases or search engines and their technical capacities. It is putting the discussion of these into a critique of late modern culture and society. In this way we may consider the modern librarian as an information critic. The modern librarian envisioned as an information critic is needed because systems of knowledge organization, in particular with the rise of the Internet, are part of our everyday life and human activities. This means that we are more than ever dependent on such systems, but at the same time we need critical insight into how such systems work and why. Otherwise, our dependence becomes one of slavery and not active participation. Therefore, critical analyses and criticisms of the tendency of theses systems to act as naturalized and transcend tools are constantly needed because they shape society and culture and are shaped by society and culture. The modern librarian should be providing such a critique of bibliographies, catalogs, and encyclopedias etc. because these are the librarians' working genres used when mediating society and culture.