Search (1465 results, page 1 of 74)

0.100329794 = sum of:
  0.08280347 = product of:
    0.2484104 = sum of:
      0.2484104 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2484104 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.01752632 = product of:
    0.03505264 = sum of:
      0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03505264 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

On a scientific concept hierarchy, a parent concept may have a few attributes, each of which has multiple values being a group of child concepts. We call these attributes facets: classification has a few facets such as application (e.g., face recognition), model (e.g., svm, knn), and metric (e.g., precision). In this work, we aim at building faceted concept hierarchies from scientific literature. Hierarchy construction methods heavily rely on hypernym detection, however, the faceted relations are parent-to-child links but the hypernym relation is a multi-hop, i.e., ancestor-to-descendent link with a specific facet "type-of". We use information extraction techniques to find synonyms, sibling concepts, and ancestor-descendent relations from a data science corpus. And we propose a hierarchy growth algorithm to infer the parent-child links from the three types of relationships. It resolves conflicts by maintaining the acyclic structure of a hierarchy.

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.09195298 = product of:
  0.18390596 = sum of:
    0.18390596 = sum of:
      0.09914383 = weight(_text_:classification in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09914383 = score(doc=3176,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.5971325 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.08476212 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08476212 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

Source

International classification. 7(1980) no.1, p.2-5

0.083608165 = sum of:
  0.0690029 = product of:
    0.20700867 = sum of:
      0.20700867 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20700867 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.014605265 = product of:
    0.02921053 = sum of:
      0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02921053 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While classifications are heavily used to categorize web content, the evolution of the web foresees a more formal structure - ontology - which can serve this purpose. Ontologies are core artifacts of the Semantic Web which enable machines to use inference rules to conduct automated reasoning on data. Lightweight ontologies bridge the gap between classifications and ontologies. A lightweight ontology (LO) is an ontology representing a backbone taxonomy where the concept of the child node is more specific than the concept of the parent node. Formal lightweight ontologies can be generated from their informal ones. The key applications of formal lightweight ontologies are document classification, semantic search, and data integration. However, these applications suffer from the following problems: the disambiguation accuracy of the state of the art NLP tools used in generating formal lightweight ontologies from their informal ones; the lack of background knowledge needed for the formal lightweight ontologies; and the limitation of ontology reuse. In this dissertation, we propose a novel solution to these problems in formal lightweight ontologies; namely, faceted lightweight ontology (FLO). FLO is a lightweight ontology in which terms, present in each node label, and their concepts, are available in the background knowledge (BK), which is organized as a set of facets. A facet can be defined as a distinctive property of the groups of concepts that can help in differentiating one group from another. Background knowledge can be defined as a subset of a knowledge base, such as WordNet, and often represents a specific domain.

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.08280347 = product of:
  0.16560695 = sum of:
    0.16560695 = product of:
      0.4968208 = sum of:
        0.4968208 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4968208 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.08050743 = product of:
  0.16101485 = sum of:
    0.16101485 = sum of:
      0.104506776 = weight(_text_:classification in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.104506776 = score(doc=1430,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.6294329 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.056508083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056508083 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1430, 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=1430)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To "classify" in Library and Information Sciences (LIS) usually involves an engagement with formally established classification systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification. In this research I suggest an alternative path for LIS scholars - one that considers the application of LIS theories about classification to the investigation of everyday life "classification" processes and technologies.

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

0.0774337 = product of:
  0.1548674 = sum of:
    0.1548674 = sum of:
      0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 6224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07010528 = score(doc=6224,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 6224, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6224)
      0.08476212 = weight(_text_:22 in 6224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08476212 = score(doc=6224,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6224, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6224)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:17:00

0.0774337 = product of:
  0.1548674 = sum of:
    0.1548674 = sum of:
      0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07010528 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
      0.08476212 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08476212 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:36:34

0.0774337 = product of:
  0.1548674 = sum of:
    0.1548674 = sum of:
      0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07010528 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.08476212 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08476212 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.0774337 = product of:
  0.1548674 = sum of:
    0.1548674 = sum of:
      0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 2302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07010528 = score(doc=2302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 2302, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2302)
      0.08476212 = weight(_text_:22 in 2302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08476212 = score(doc=2302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2302, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2302)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10.11.2015 10:22:31

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.07661362 = product of:
  0.15322724 = sum of:
    0.15322724 = sum of:
      0.110846184 = weight(_text_:classification in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.110846184 = score(doc=2945,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.66761446 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)

0.07661362 = product of:
  0.15322724 = sum of:
    0.15322724 = sum of:
      0.110846184 = weight(_text_:classification in 2594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.110846184 = score(doc=2594,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.66761446 = fieldWeight in 2594, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2594)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=2594,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2594, 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=2594)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Standard library classification systems like Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), U.S. Library of Congress Classification (LCC), and Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) are internationally known and widely used by libraries as the tools for organizing information. Charles Ammi Cutter's Expansive Classification (EC), James Duff Brown's Subject Classification (SC), Henry E. Bliss' Bibliographic Classification (BC), and S. R. Ranganathan's Colon Classification (CC) also are standard classification systems, but they are less commonly used compared to aforementioned three systems. All these systems are easy to use and convenient for most general collection libraries. However, these systems are not adequate for some special collections. Libraries with rich collections on Islam also face problems while using these systems, although such libraries often use expansions in the original systems for their collections. This paper examines this problem and presents a potential optimal solution. The author collected data, using a semistructured interview technique, from a representative sample of thirty libraries in eight countries with strong collections in Islam. These data were analyzed employing qualitative methods.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07422473 = product of:
  0.14844947 = sum of:
    0.14844947 = sum of:
      0.11313191 = weight(_text_:classification in 736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11313191 = score(doc=736,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.68138117 = fieldWeight in 736, product of:
            5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
              30.0 = termFreq=30.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=736)
      0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03531755 = score(doc=736,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 736, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=736)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book would serve as a good introductory textbook for a library science student or as a reference work on the types of classification currently in use. College and Research Libraries - covers all aspects of library classification - it is the only book that reviews literature published over a decade's time span (1999-2009) - well thought chapterization which is in tune with the LIS and classification curriculum - useful reference tool for researchers in classification - a valuable contribution to the bibliographic control of classification literature Library Classification Trends in the 21st Century traces development in and around library classification as reported in literature published in the first decade of the 21st century. It reviews literature published on various aspects of library classification, including modern applications of classification such as internet resource discovery, automatic book classification, text categorization, modern manifestations of classification such as taxonomies, folksonomies and ontologies and interoperable systems enabling crosswalk. The book also features classification education and an exploration of relevant topics.

Date

22. 2.2013 12:23:55

LCSH

Classification / History / 21st century

Subject

Classification / History / 21st century

0.07289848 = product of:
  0.14579695 = sum of:
    0.14579695 = sum of:
      0.08586108 = weight(_text_:classification in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08586108 = score(doc=1967,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.059935875 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059935875 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.07076245 = product of:
  0.1415249 = sum of:
    0.1415249 = sum of:
      0.09914383 = weight(_text_:classification in 861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09914383 = score(doc=861,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.5971325 = fieldWeight in 861, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=861)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=861,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 861, 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=861)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The main goal of this study is to outline a possible relation between archival classification and knowledge organization theory. In this sense, we seek to contribute to the conceptual classification in Archival Science, since there is a lack of systematization about archival classification; not just classification, but even the study of historical and conceptual aspects of the discipline. In the context of knowledge organization there is a considerable amount of research on how to build classification schemes and indexing systems that can help contribute to and expand archival classification theory. In order to comprehend this vast field of theories and methodologies we construct a parallel comparing the classification concepts in both areas and analyzing these concepts.

Date

3. 6.2013 13:22:19

0.070444 = product of:
  0.140888 = sum of:
    0.140888 = sum of:
      0.091443434 = weight(_text_:classification in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.091443434 = score(doc=1893,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 1893, 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=1893)
      0.04944457 = weight(_text_:22 in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04944457 = score(doc=1893,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article re-visits a scenario from 1987: a university president required a library director to reclassify some materials into a science classification. The author looks at the prominence of the Code of Ethics of the American Library Association in the general library literature and in classification and cataloging practice literature. The issue of censorship is also discussed. The author then reviews classification for Creationism and Intelligent design and some decision-making processes one could use when deciding on the professional ethics of such a request, concluding that in some cases the ethical action might indeed be to go ahead with the reclassification.

Date

25. 5.2015 18:22:47

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.5, S.408-427

0.0690029 = product of:
  0.1380058 = sum of:
    0.1380058 = product of:
      0.41401735 = sum of:
        0.41401735 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.41401735 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.06872934 = product of:
  0.13745868 = sum of:
    0.13745868 = sum of:
      0.0809506 = weight(_text_:classification in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0809506 = score(doc=826,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
      0.056508083 = weight(_text_:22 in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056508083 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the effect of scheme change on the semantics in faceted classification. Two types of change are identified: ecological change and lexical change. Examples from different editions of the Colon Classification are used to illustrate change.

Date

2. 6.2013 18:33:22

0.06628321 = product of:
  0.13256642 = sum of:
    0.13256642 = sum of:
      0.08261986 = weight(_text_:classification in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08261986 = score(doc=1962,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.049946558 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049946558 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, 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=1962)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.90-101

0.065617025 = product of:
  0.13123405 = sum of:
    0.13123405 = sum of:
      0.081789486 = weight(_text_:classification in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.081789486 = score(doc=1423,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
      0.04944457 = weight(_text_:22 in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04944457 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores relationships between different classification schemes. It suggests how these relationships could be considered part of the reception of a scheme, in particular as an aspect of its "Wirkung". Both intra-domain and inter-domain scheme relationships are examined, and are combined with pre-existing research on intra-scheme relationships. A model is posited which maps inter-scheme relationships, showing some of the complexities evoked in analysing the connections between classification schemes. Musical instrument (organology) classification is used as examples throughout the paper, to illustrate the ideas being discussed.

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

0.06452808 = product of:
  0.12905616 = sum of:
    0.12905616 = sum of:
      0.05842106 = weight(_text_:classification in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05842106 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.0706351 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0706351 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2748, 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=2748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22