Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The field of information science is constantly changing. Therefore, information scientists are required to regularly review-and if necessary-redefine its fundamental building blocks. This article is one of four articles that documents the results of the Critical Delphi study conducted in 2003-2005. The study, "Knowledge Map of Information Science," was aimed at exploring the foundations of information science. The international panel was composed of 57 leading scholars from 16 countries who represent nearly all the major subfields and important aspects of the field. In this study, the author documents 50 definitions of information science, maps the major theoretical issues relevant to the formulation of a systematic conception, formulates six different conceptions of the field, and discusses their implications.

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 6056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=6056,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 6056, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6056)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Internet challenges designers of reference resources to structure user interfaces so that they facilitate quick access to bibliographies. Designers can organize bibliographies in chronological order of publication, alphabetical listing by author or title and/or subject-headings; or can follow a subject classification scheme from the relevant field. Chronological order of publication and alphabetical listings of authors and titles are the simplest ways to organize bibliographic materials, but these methods usually fall to present the thematic relations among the various items. The subject classification is the most systematic presentation, but the most complicated to develop. This study explores the subject classification model, elaborates its rationale, demonstrates an exemplary faceted subject classification scheme grounded in solid scientific foundations, and clarifies the scientific foundations of the three-phase structuring methodology that was utilized. The exemplary classificatory model is a seven-facet subject classification scheme designed for classifying scholarly papers in the field of Logotherapy. The study, in particular the scientific structuring methodology, provides an example for structuring bibliographic resources in the social sciences, as well as in other academic fields

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=1160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 1160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1160)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Designing systematic access to Internet resources is a major item an the agenda of researchers and practitioners in the field of information science, and is the focus of this study. A critical analysis of classification schemes used in major portals and Web classified directories exposes inconsistencies in the way they classify Internet resources. The inconsistencies indicate that the developers fall to differentiate the various classificatory models, and are unaware of their different rationales. The study establishes eight classificatory models for resources available to Internet users. Internet resources can be classified by subjects, objects, applications, users, locations, reference sources, media, and languages. The first five models are contentrelated; namely they characterize the content of the resource. The other three models are formst-related; namely they characterize the format of the resource or its technological infrastructure. The study identifies and formulates the eight classificatory models, analyzes their rationales, and discusses alternative ways to combine them in a faceted integrated classification scheme.

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article is part of a group of four articles that resulted from a Critical Delphi study conducted in 2003-2005. The study, "Knowledge Map of Information Science," was aimed at exploring the foundations of information science. The international panel was composed of 57 leading scholars from 16 countries who represent nearly all the major subfields and important aspects of the field. This article presents a systematic and comprehensive knowledge map of the field, and is grounded on the panel discussions. The map has 10 basic categories: (1) Foundations, (2) Resources, (3) Knowledge Workers, (4) Contents, (5) Applications, (6) Operations and Processes, (7) Technologies, (8) Environments, (9) Organizations, and (10) Users. The model establishes the groundwork for formulating theories of information science, as well as developing and evaluating information science academic programs and bibliographic resources.

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=2287,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study, "Knowledge Map of Information Science: Issues, Principles, Implications", explores the theoretical foundations of information science. It maps the conceptual approaches for defining "data", "information", and "knowledge", maps the major conceptions of Information Science, portrays the profile of contemporary Information Science by documenting 28 classification schemes compiled by leading scholars during the study, and culminates in developing a systematic and scientifically based knowledge map of the field, one grounded on a solid theoretical basis. The study was supported by a research grant from the Israel Science Foundation (2003-2005). The scientific methodology is Critical Delphi. The international panel was composed of 57 leading scholars from 16 countries who represent nearly all the major sub-fields and important aspects of the field.

0.029886894 = product of:
  0.08966068 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=3011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 3011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3011)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study exemplifies an integrated methodological approach to domain analysis. The study analyzes the field of Social work. It is aimed at developing a systematic, comprehensive, and scientifically valid knowledge map, and its applicability as an efficient tool to adequately represent knowledge in the field. The map is composed of seven parts: foundation (meta-knowledge), Social worker, environment, organization, area of practice, method, and client. The study followed a qualitative fourphase research methodology. The first phase was a phenomenological analysis of the basic characteristics of Social work as a Social service. The analysis resulted in a sevenfacet subject classification. In the second phase the conceptual skeleton was elaborated, and adjusted to the field of Social work by a grounded-theory methodology. The data used for grounding the model were 14 Social work resources. The model was tested in the third phase by classifying 200 terms randomly selected from the Dictionary of Social Work (Barleer, 1999). Finally, in the fourth phase we classified 197 papers published in two leading journals, Social Work and Social Service Review, in three successive years, 1997, 1998, and 1999. This exemplary study has implications for domain analysis. The paper discusses these implications.