Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Hider, P.; Coe, M.: Academic disciplines in the context of library classification : mapping university faculty structures to the DDC and LCC schemes (2022) 0.02
```
0.022860859 = product of:
  0.045721717 = sum of:
    0.045721717 = product of:
      0.091443434 = sum of:
        0.091443434 = weight(_text_:classification in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091443434 = score(doc=709,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

We investigated the extent to which the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification reflect the organizational structures of Australian universities. The mapping of the faculty structures of ten universities to the two schemes showed strong alignment, with very few fields represented in the names of the organizational units not covered at all by either bibliographic scheme. This suggests a degree of universality and "scientific and educational consensus" with respect to both the schemes and academic disciplines. The article goes on to discuss the concept of discipline and its application in bibliographic classification.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.2, p.194-213

Hider, P.: ¬A survey of continuing professional development activities and attitudes amongst catalogers (2006) 0.01

0.010223686 = product of:
  0.020447372 = sum of:
    0.020447372 = product of:
      0.040894743 = sum of:
        0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040894743 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5772, 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=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 42(2006) no.2, S.35-58

Hider, P.; Turner, S.: ¬The application of AACR2's rules for personal names in certain languages (2006) 0.01

0.010223686 = product of:
  0.020447372 = sum of:
    0.020447372 = product of:
      0.040894743 = sum of:
        0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040894743 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 234, 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=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) no.2, S.37-52

Hider, P.; Liu, Y.-H.: ¬The use of RDA elements in support of FRBR user tasks (2013) 0.01

0.010223686 = product of:
  0.020447372 = sum of:
    0.020447372 = product of:
      0.040894743 = sum of:
        0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040894743 = score(doc=1958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1958, 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=1958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.8, S.857-872

Hider, P.: ¬A critique of the FRBR user tasks and their modifications (2017) 0.01

0.010223686 = product of:
  0.020447372 = sum of:
    0.020447372 = product of:
      0.040894743 = sum of:
        0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 5143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040894743 = score(doc=5143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5143, 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=5143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.2, S.55-74

Hider, P.: Familial authorship in the Anglo-American cataloging tradition (2007) 0.01

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2007) no.2, S.65-82

Hider, P.; Tan, K.-C.: Constructing record quality measures based on catalog use (2008) 0.01

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=2724,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 46(2008) no.4, S.338-361

Hider, P.: ¬A comparison between the RDA taxonomies and end-user categorizations of content and carrier (2009) 0.01

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 2995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=2995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 47(2009) no.6, S.xx-xx

Hider, P.: Towards a sociology of KOS and more basic KO research (2020) 0.01
```
0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=18,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

It is suggested that the knowledge organization (KO) field places greater emphasis on basic research that examines the sociology of KO systems (KOS) and the broader, environmental reasons for the development of both formal and informal KOS. This approach is contrasted with applied KO, which focuses on the practical construction or improvement of specific KOS. The preponderance of applied research in the field of KO is confirmed, at least within the document-centric strand more closely aligned with library and information science, through a survey of articles in the Knowledge Organization journal published between 2009 and 2018. The survey utilized the Frascati Manual definitions for basic and applied research, and referenced Tennis's classification of KO research (2008). There is considerable potential for building on the critical tradition of KO, with various areas ripe for further sociological investigation. A sociology of KOS could also be accommodated in the popular KO approach of domain analysis.

Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Themes