Search (1617 results, page 1 of 81)

0.15485434 = product of:
  0.2322815 = sum of:
    0.1926932 = weight(_text_:interest in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1926932 = score(doc=1973,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.7684883 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.039588302 = product of:
      0.079176605 = sum of:
        0.079176605 = weight(_text_:classification in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079176605 = score(doc=1973,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 1973, 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=1973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In the recent years, several libraries in the United States have been experimenting with Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), the classification system of the book industry, as an alternative to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Although rarely discussed, these cases of implementation of BISAC arguably resemble other past cases of replacement of traditional classifications that received the name of reader-interest classifications. In this article, a comparison of the BISAC cases to the previous cases of reader-interest classifications is taken in order to determine if the current application of BISAC to libraries is susceptible to the same problems, dangers, and ends as occurred in the past.

Object

Reader interest classification

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.2, S.137-155

0.14572906 = product of:
  0.21859358 = sum of:
    0.18466075 = weight(_text_:interest in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18466075 = score(doc=780,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.7364537 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
    0.03393283 = product of:
      0.06786566 = sum of:
        0.06786566 = weight(_text_:classification in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06786566 = score(doc=780,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

During the last century, the concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and commonly-agreed characteristics in the literature and other classification discourses. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects, and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. However, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day, such as those of implementation of BISAC in public libraries, the use of reader-interest classification-related terms and references have drastically declined since 1995. The present work attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

Object

Reader interest classification

0.121806756 = product of:
  0.18271013 = sum of:
    0.16857144 = weight(_text_:interest in 1306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16857144 = score(doc=1306,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.6722872 = fieldWeight in 1306, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1306)
    0.014138679 = product of:
      0.028277358 = sum of:
        0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 1306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028277358 = score(doc=1306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1306, 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=1306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

How to provide users a positive experience during interaction with information (i.e., the "Information eXperience" (IX)) is still an open question. As a starting point, this work investigates how the emotion of interest can be influenced by modifying the complexity of the information presented to users. The appraisal theory of interest suggests a "sweet spot" where interest will be at its peak: information that is novel and complex yet still comprehensible. This "sweet spot" is approximated using two studies. Study One develops a computational model of textual complexity founded on psycholinguistic theory on processing difficulty. The model was trained and tested on 12,420 articles, achieving a classification performance of 90.87% on two classes of complexity. Study Two puts the model to its ultimate test: Its application to change the user's IX. Using 18 news articles the influence of complexity on interest and its appraisals is unveiled. A structural equation model shows a positive influence of complexity on interest, yet a negative influence of comprehensibility, confirming a seemingly paradoxical relationship between complexity and interest. By showing when complexity becomes interesting, this paper shows how information systems can use the model of textual complexity to construct an interesting IX.

0.12142134 = product of:
  0.182132 = sum of:
    0.16516559 = weight(_text_:interest in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16516559 = score(doc=3626,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.6587042 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
    0.016966416 = product of:
      0.03393283 = sum of:
        0.03393283 = weight(_text_:classification in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03393283 = score(doc=3626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3626, 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=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and common characteristics in the knowledge organization literature for more than half a century. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. The use of reader-interest classification related terms and references drastically declined since 1995, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day such as those of implementation of BISAC in American public libraries. The present paper attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

0.11082558 = product of:
  0.16623837 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
    0.09741938 = sum of:
      0.0632301 = weight(_text_:classification in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0632301 = score(doc=3698,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
      0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034189284 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3698, 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=3698)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Although bibliographic classifications usually adopt a perspective different from that of object classifications, the two have obvious relationships. These become especially relevant when users are looking for knowledge scattered in a wide variety of forms and media. This is an increasingly common situation, as library catalogues now coexist in the global digital environment with catalogues of archives, of museums, of commercial products, and many other information resources. In order to make the subject content of all these resources searchable, a broader conception of classification is needed, that can be applied to an knowledge item, rather than only bibliographic materials. To illustrate this we take an example of the research on bagpipes in Northern Italian folklore. For this kind of research, the most effective search strategy is a cross-media one, looking for many different knowledge sources such as published documents, police archives, painting details, museum specimens, organizations devoted to related subjects. To provide satisfying results for this kind of search, the traditional disciplinary approach to classification is not sufficient. Tools are needed in which knowledge items dealing with a phenomenon of interest can be retrieved independently from the other topics with which it is combined, the disciplinary context, and the medium where it occurs. This can be made possible if the basic units of classification are taken to be the phenomena treated, as recommended in the León Manifesto, rather than disciplines or other aspect features. The concept of bagpipes should be retrievable and browsable in any combination with other phenomena, disciplines, media etc. Examples are given of information sources that could be managed by this freely-faceted technique of classification.

Date

22. 7.2010 20:40:08

0.10637534 = product of:
  0.159563 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
    0.090744 = sum of:
      0.056554716 = weight(_text_:classification in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056554716 = score(doc=1107,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
      0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034189284 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1107, 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=1107)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Retrieval of disease information is often based on several key aspects such as etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and symptoms of diseases. Automatic identification of disease aspect information is thus essential. In this article, I model the aspect identification problem as a text classification (TC) problem in which a disease aspect corresponds to a category. The disease aspect classification problem poses two challenges to classifiers: (a) a medical text often contains information about multiple aspects of a disease and hence produces noise for the classifiers and (b) text classifiers often cannot extract the textual parts (i.e., passages) about the categories of interest. I thus develop a technique, PETC (Passage Extractor for Text Classification), that extracts passages (from medical texts) for the underlying text classifiers to classify. Case studies on thousands of Chinese and English medical texts show that PETC enhances a support vector machine (SVM) classifier in classifying disease aspect information. PETC also performs better than three state-of-the-art classifier enhancement techniques, including two passage extraction techniques for text classifiers and a technique that employs term proximity information to enhance text classifiers. The contribution is of significance to evidence-based medicine, health education, and healthcare decision support. PETC can be used in those application domains in which a text to be classified may have several parts about different categories.

Date

28.10.2013 19:22:57

0.10315509 = product of:
  0.15473263 = sum of:
    0.13763799 = weight(_text_:interest in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13763799 = score(doc=2637,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.54892015 = fieldWeight in 2637, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2637)
    0.017094642 = product of:
      0.034189284 = sum of:
        0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034189284 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a qualitative research study that examined professional image users' knowledge of, and interest in using, content-based image retrieval (CBIR) systems in an attempt to clarify when and where CBIR methods might be applied. The research sought to determine the differences in the perceived usefulness of CBIR technologies among image user groups from several domains and explicate the reasons given regarding the utility of CBIR systems for their professional tasks. Twenty participants (archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists), individuals who rely on images of cultural materials in the performance of their work, took part in the study. The findings of the study reveal that interest in CBIR methods varied among the different professional user communities. Individuals who showed an interest in these systems were primarily those concerned with the formal characteristics (i.e., color, shape, composition, and texture) of the images being sought. In contrast, those participants who expressed a strong interest in images of known items, images illustrating themes, and/or items from specific locations believe concept-based searches to be the most direct route. These image users did not see a practical application for CBIR systems in their current work routines.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:32:25

0.10118445 = product of:
  0.15177667 = sum of:
    0.13763799 = weight(_text_:interest in 2011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13763799 = score(doc=2011,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.54892015 = fieldWeight in 2011, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2011)
    0.014138679 = product of:
      0.028277358 = sum of:
        0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 2011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028277358 = score(doc=2011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2011, 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=2011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Over the past ten years, various organizations, both public and private, have expressed interest in implementing FAST in their cataloging workflows. As interest in FAST has grown, so too has interest in knowing how FAST is being used and by whom. Since 2002 eighteen institutions (see table 1) in six countries have expressed interest in learning more about FAST and how it could be implemented in cataloging workflows. Currently OCLC is aware of nine agencies that have actually adopted or support FAST for resource description. This study, the first systematic census of FAST users undertaken by OCLC, was conducted, in part, to address these inquiries. Its purpose was to examine: how FAST is being utilized; why FAST was chosen as the cataloging vocabulary; what benefits FAST provides; and what can be done to enhance the value of FAST. Interview requests were sent to all parties that had previously contacted OCLC about FAST. Of the eighteen organizations contacted, sixteen agreed to provide information about their decision whether to use FAST (nine adopters, seven non-adopters).

Footnote

Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 53(2015) no.2, S.247-249 (Shelby E. Harken)

0.09579128 = product of:
  0.14368692 = sum of:
    0.11919801 = weight(_text_:interest in 5266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11919801 = score(doc=5266,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.47537887 = fieldWeight in 5266, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5266)
    0.024488911 = product of:
      0.048977822 = sum of:
        0.048977822 = weight(_text_:classification in 5266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048977822 = score(doc=5266,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 5266, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Through their work as instructors in a master of library science program, the authors observed a sharp increase in students' desire to adopt the reader-interest classification approach of genrefication for their school libraries' fiction collections. In order to better understand this trend, the researchers interviewed seven school librarians regarding their motivations for genrefying their libraries' fiction collections; the challenges they encountered during or after the genrefication process; and any benefits they perceived as having resulted in the implementation of genrefication. The data suggest that the librarians' interests in genrefication stem mostly from the lack of time they have to help individual students find materials, and the lack of time students are given out of the instructional day to explore the libraries' fiction collections. The participants felt that reclassifying the library's fiction collection by genre gave students more ownership of the fiction collection and allowed them to find ma-terials that genuinely interested them. The significant challenges the librarians faced in the reorganization process speak to challenges regarding the ways in which librarians attempt to provide access to diverse materials for all patrons.

Object

Reader Interest Classification

0.09533234 = product of:
  0.1429985 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 1434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1434)
    0.07417951 = sum of:
      0.039990224 = weight(_text_:classification in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039990224 = score(doc=1434,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 1434, 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=1434)
      0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034189284 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1434, 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=1434)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Knowledge organization of large-scale content on the Web requires substantial amounts of semantic metadata that is expensive to generate manually. Recent developments in Web technologies have enabled any user to tag documents and other forms of content thereby generating metadata that could help organize knowledge. However, merely adding one or more tags to a document is highly inadequate to capture the aboutness of the document and thereby to support powerful semantic functions such as automatic classification, question answering or true semantic search and retrieval. This is true even when the tags used are labels from a well-designed classification system such as a thesaurus or taxonomy. There is a strong need to develop a semantic tagging mechanism with sufficient expressive power to capture the aboutness of each part of a document or dataset or multimedia content in order to enable applications that can benefit from knowledge organization on the Web. This article proposes a highly expressive mechanism of using ontology snippets as semantic tags that map portions of a document or a part of a dataset or a segment of a multimedia content to concepts and relations in an ontology of the domain(s) of interest.

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

0.09153552 = product of:
  0.13730328 = sum of:
    0.11678971 = weight(_text_:interest in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11678971 = score(doc=4345,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.46577424 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.02051357 = product of:
      0.04102714 = sum of:
        0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04102714 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The microblogging site Twitter generates a constant stream of communication, some of which concerns events of general interest. An analysis of Twitter may, therefore, give insights into why particular events resonate with the population. This article reports a study of a month of English Twitter posts, assessing whether popular events are typically associated with increases in sentiment strength, as seems intuitively likely. Using the top 30 events, determined by a measure of relative increase in (general) term usage, the results give strong evidence that popular events are normally associated with increases in negative sentiment strength and some evidence that peaks of interest in events have stronger positive sentiment than the time before the peak. It seems that many positive events, such as the Oscars, are capable of generating increased negative sentiment in reaction to them. Nevertheless, the surprisingly small average change in sentiment associated with popular events (typically 1% and only 6% for Tiger Woods' confessions) is consistent with events affording posters opportunities to satisfy pre-existing personal goals more often than eliciting instinctive reactions.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

0.087087385 = product of:
  0.13063107 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
    0.034284476 = product of:
      0.06856895 = sum of:
        0.06856895 = weight(_text_:classification in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06856895 = score(doc=3566,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article documents and analyzes Nancy J. Williamson's contributions to two of the major publications of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), International Classification/ Knowledge Organization and Advances in Classification Research. The results show her serious and long-standing commitment to the field of representing and organizing information and knowledge and her dedication to expanding worldwide interest and involvement in these fields. The Appendix provides access to each of Williamson's contributions to the two ISKO publications.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.1, S.26-35

0.087087385 = product of:
  0.13063107 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 5521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=5521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 5521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5521)
    0.034284476 = product of:
      0.06856895 = sum of:
        0.06856895 = weight(_text_:classification in 5521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06856895 = score(doc=5521,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 5521, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In 1983 Boyd Rayward described the early diffusion abroad of the Dewey Decimal Classification (and indirectly of the Universal Decimal Classification) in Australia, Great Britain, Belgium, France, Switzerland, and Russia. Here, I discuss the enormous interest in the decimal system in the Netherlands that went far beyond its original role for the classification of bibliographic knowledge. I will present Johan Zaalberg (1858-1934) and Ernst Hijmans (1890-1987) as two advocates for the use of the decimal system in the administration of public organizations and private companies and its role in the development of scientific management in the Netherlands.

0.08289318 = product of:
  0.12433976 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
    0.027993156 = product of:
      0.05598631 = sum of:
        0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05598631 = score(doc=1952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.6, S.624-654

0.08018607 = product of:
  0.1202791 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 1403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=1403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 1403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1403)
    0.023932498 = product of:
      0.047864996 = sum of:
        0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 1403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047864996 = score(doc=1403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1403, 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=1403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In recent years there is growing interest in the study of paranormal phenomenon. A broad area referred to as the Science of Consciousness has emerged as a discipline. This paper is an attempt to map the domain, and examine its coverage in knowledge organization systems. An idea of the facets of the domain is also provided based on an analysis of the published literature with the suggestion that these need to be adequately provided for in systems of knowledge organization.

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

0.08018607 = product of:
  0.1202791 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
    0.023932498 = product of:
      0.047864996 = sum of:
        0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047864996 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.08018607 = product of:
  0.1202791 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
    0.023932498 = product of:
      0.047864996 = sum of:
        0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047864996 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Research libraries are using batchloading to provide access to many resources that they would otherwise be unable to catalog given the staff and other resources available. To explore how such libraries are managing their batchloading activities, the authors conducted a survey of the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group member libraries. The survey addressed staffing, budgets, scope, workflow, management, quality standards, information technology support, collaborative efforts, and assessment of batchloading activities. The authors provide an analysis of the survey results along with suggestions for process improvements and future research.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07785981 = product of:
  0.23357943 = sum of:
    0.23357943 = weight(_text_:interest in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23357943 = score(doc=1035,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.9315485 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

User interest as a very dynamic information need is often ignored in most existing information retrieval systems. In this research, we present the results of experiments designed to evaluate the performance of a real-time interest model (RIM) that attempts to identify the dynamic and changing query level interests regarding social media outputs. Unlike most existing ranking methods, our ranking approach targets calculation of the probability that user interest in the content of the document is subject to very dynamic user interest change. We describe 2 formulations of the model (real-time interest vector space and real-time interest language model) stemming from classical relevance ranking methods and develop a novel methodology for evaluating the performance of RIM using Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect (interest-based) relevance judgments on a daily basis. Our results show that the model usually, although not always, performs better than baseline results obtained from commercial web search engines. We identify factors that affect RIM performance and outline plans for future research.

0.07742717 = product of:
  0.11614075 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=5479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 5479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5479)
    0.019794151 = product of:
      0.039588302 = sum of:
        0.039588302 = weight(_text_:classification in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039588302 = score(doc=5479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5479, 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=5479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Semantic interoperability between Resource Description and Access (RDA) and BIBFRAME models is of great interest to the library community. In this context, this work investigates the mapping of core entities, inherent and derivative relationships from RDA to BIBFRAME, and proposes mapping rules assessed using two gold datasets. Findings indicate that RDA core entities and inherent relationships can be successfully mapped to BIBFRAME using the bf:hasExpression property, while extending bf:hasExpression as transitive simplifies BIBFRAME representations. Moreover, mapping derivative relationships between RDA Expressions was successful with loss of specificity in non-translation cases. The mapping of derivative relationships between RDA Works produced "noisy" bf:hasDerivative occurrences in BIBFRAME.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 57(2019) no.5, S.278-308

0.07626587 = product of:
  0.11439881 = sum of:
    0.055055197 = weight(_text_:interest in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055055197 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.21956807 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.059343606 = sum of:
      0.03199218 = weight(_text_:classification in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03199218 = score(doc=770,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.027351426 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027351426 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.