Search (305 results, page 1 of 16)

0.13256618 = product of:
  0.19884928 = sum of:
    0.13625467 = weight(_text_:interest in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13625467 = score(doc=705,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.54340327 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
    0.06259461 = product of:
      0.12518921 = sum of:
        0.12518921 = weight(_text_:classification in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12518921 = score(doc=705,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.7788835 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article offers a basic introduction to classification in the context of librarianship in the United States with an aim toward filling gaps in formal education and practical experience. The article defines the concept of classification and discusses the goals and purposes of classification, both functional and intellectual. Overviews of two common classification systems frequently used in U.S. libraries are presented: Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Library of Congress Classification (LCC), as well as an introduction to a group of classifications known as "reader-interest classifications."

Content

Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1881008. Teil eines Themenheftes: Cataloging and Classification: Back to Basics

Object

Reader Interest Classification

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.2/3, S.203-224

0.087087385 = product of:
  0.13063107 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 1145, 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=1145)
    0.034284476 = product of:
      0.06856895 = sum of:
        0.06856895 = weight(_text_:classification in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06856895 = score(doc=1145,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 1145, 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=1145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Critical race theory (CRT) is a framework that evolved from critical legal studies of the 1970s but has only recently been the target of intense scrutiny in education and politics. This article aims to describe CRT and how it can frame issues within cataloging and classification standards and practice. CRT tenets permanence of racism, whiteness as property, the critique of liberalism, intersectionality, counter-storytelling, and interest convergence are explored in the context of cataloging and classification work. Concepts of "authority" and "justice" are also examined. CRT can provide valuable evidence for critical cataloging efforts to make cataloging more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.6-7, p.646-674

0.08289318 = product of:
  0.12433976 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=454,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 454, 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=454)
    0.027993156 = product of:
      0.05598631 = sum of:
        0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05598631 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 454, 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=454)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Names for colours or colour-related properties are ubiquitous among natural languages, and this has made linguistic colour classification a topic of interest: are colour classifications in natural languages language-specific, or is there a more general set of principles by which such classificatory terms are organized? This article focuses on a debate between cultural-linguistic, relativistic approaches, and universalistic approaches in this domain of research. It characterizes the central contemporary debates about colour naming, and the main research strategies currently in use, as well as a novel, hybrid strategy.

0.08276124 = product of:
  0.12414186 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
    0.041559063 = product of:
      0.083118126 = sum of:
        0.083118126 = weight(_text_:classification in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083118126 = score(doc=5900,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 5900, 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=5900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The modern classification of mathematical subjects occurred within the larger framework of library classification, a project receiving sustained attention in the period from 1870 to the present. The early work of the library cataloguers was carried out against the background of a broad nineteenth-century interest in the classification of knowledge. We explore different views during this period concerning the position of mathematics in the overall scheme of knowledge, the scope of mathematics and the internal organization of the different parts of mathematics. We examine how mathematical books were classified, from the most general level down to the level of particular subject areas in analysis. The focus is on the Library of Congress Classification in its various iterations from 1905 to the present. The article ends with an examination of the Mathematics Subject Classification Scheme employed today by reviewing services Mathematical Reviews in the United States and Zentralblatt in Germany.

0.07853121 = product of:
  0.117796816 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 233, 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=233)
    0.048977822 = product of:
      0.097955644 = sum of:
        0.097955644 = weight(_text_:classification in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097955644 = score(doc=233,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.6094458 = fieldWeight in 233, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

For a special library serving its parent organization, the design and use of classification schemes primarily need to support work activities. However, when the Prince Vivadhanajaya Library at the Bank of Thailand decided to open its doors to the public in 2018, the redesign of classification that serves both internal staff work and the public interest became a challenging task. We designed a classification scheme by integrating work centered classification design approach, classification as communication framework and the service design approach. The design process included developing empathy, ideation and implementation and evaluation. As a result, the new classification scheme, including seven main classes and thirty-seven level-one subclasses and twenty-two level-two subclasses, was primarily based on the organization's strategic plans, mapping with JEL Classification Codes, Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The classification scheme also includes geographical code, author cutter number, publication year, volume number and copy number. Follow up interviews with twenty-three participants were conducted two years later to evaluate user experience as well as the staff's opinion of the new classification scheme. The feedback addressed favorable outcomes and challenges to be used for the next iteration of the library service design process.

0.07742717 = product of:
  0.11614075 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 1173, 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=1173)
    0.019794151 = product of:
      0.039588302 = sum of:
        0.039588302 = weight(_text_:classification in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039588302 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1173, 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=1173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Genre/Form headings are an important means by which librarians provide users with contextual or descriptive information. To facilitate the discovery of resources with important provenance characteristics, the Marion E. Wade Center added terms from a controlled vocabulary to bibliographic records representing items in the C. S. Lewis personal library collection. The selected terms focus on features that have historically been of interest to visitors. The addition of these headings in the bibliographic records allows users to use these keywords to conduct a search or narrow their results, resulting in more flexibility to locate and select the resources that best meet their needs.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.5-6, S.646-660

0.064730905 = product of:
  0.097096354 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 468, 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=468)
    0.028277358 = product of:
      0.056554716 = sum of:
        0.056554716 = weight(_text_:classification in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056554716 = score(doc=468,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 468, 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=468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The rise in artificial intelligence and natural language processing techniques has increased considerably in the last few decades. Historically, the focus has been primarily on texts expressed in prose form, leaving mostly aside figurative or poetic expressions of language due to their rich semantics and syntactic complexity. The creation and analysis of poetry have been commonly carried out by hand, with a few computer-assisted approaches. In the Spanish context, the promise of machine learning is starting to pan out in specific tasks such as metrical annotation and syllabification. However, there is a task that remains unexplored and underdeveloped: stanza classification. This classification of the inner structures of verses in which a poem is built upon is an especially relevant task for poetry studies since it complements the structural information of a poem. In this work, we analyzed different computational approaches to stanza classification in the Spanish poetic tradition. These approaches show that this task continues to be hard for computers systems, both based on classical machine learning approaches as well as statistical language models and cannot compete with traditional computational paradigms based on the knowledge of experts.

Series

JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): C. Methodological innovations, challenges, and new interest in DH

0.057275757 = product of:
  0.085913636 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
    0.017094642 = product of:
      0.034189284 = sum of:
        0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034189284 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

0.055305116 = product of:
  0.08295767 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 1108, 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=1108)
    0.014138679 = product of:
      0.028277358 = sum of:
        0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028277358 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1108, 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=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The review attempts to compare different points of view on the essence of the systems approach, describe the terminological confusion around it and analyse the numerous definitions of system. It is shown that the vagueness and ambiguity of the concept of the systems approach is manifested in the use of a number of terms which are similar in meaning and close in sound to it. It is proposed to divide the existing definitions of system into descriptive and formal ones. The concepts included in the descriptive definitions, as well as the numerous synonymous terms denoting them, are divided into five conceptual-terminological groups that differ in their content and logical meaning. The meanings of such concepts as minimal constituent parts, emergence, environment, boundaries, purpose, functions of system and systems hierarchy are revealed. Some uses of the concept in knowledge organization are mentioned. The problem of systems classification is touched upon. Separate sections are devoted to the highlights of the history of the systems approach, its criticism and the significance. Particular attention is paid to criticism of the mathematization of the systems approach. Possible reasons for the decline in interest in the systems approach are identified. It is concluded that the systems approach helps to find new ways to solve scientific and practical problems.

0.051784724 = product of:
  0.077677086 = sum of:
    0.055055197 = weight(_text_:interest in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055055197 = score(doc=1098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.21956807 = fieldWeight in 1098, 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=1098)
    0.022621887 = product of:
      0.045243774 = sum of:
        0.045243774 = weight(_text_:classification in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045243774 = score(doc=1098,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to find out how different library classification systems and linguistic ontologies arrange a particular domain of interest and what are the limitations for information retrieval. We use knowledge representation techniques and languages for construction of a domain specific ontology. This ontology would help not only in problem solving, but it would demonstrate the ease with which complex queries can be handled using principles of domain ontology, thereby facilitating better information retrieval. Facet-based methodology has been used for ontology formalization for quite some time. Ontology formalization involves different steps such as, Identification of the terminology, Analysis, Synthesis, Standardization and Ordering. Firstly, for purposes of conceptualization OntoUML has been used which is a well-founded and established language for Ontology driven Conceptual Modelling. Phase transformation of "the same mode" has been subsequently obtained by OWL-DL using Protégé software. The final OWL ontology contains a total of around 232 axioms. These axioms comprise 148 logical axioms, 76 declaration axioms and 43 classes. These axioms glue together classes, properties and data types as well as a constraint. Such data clustering cannot be achieved through general use of simple classification schemes. Hence it has been observed and established that domain ontology using faceted principles provide better information retrieval with enhanced precision. This ontology should be seen not only as an alternative of the existing classification system but as a Knowledge Base (KB) system which can handle complex queries well, which is the ultimate purpose of any classification system or indexing system. In this paper, we try to understand how ontology-based information retrieval systems can prove its utility as a useful tool in the field of library science with a particular focus on the education domain.

0.0476792 = product of:
  0.1430376 = sum of:
    0.1430376 = weight(_text_:interest in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1430376 = score(doc=880,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.5704546 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowing what information a user wants is a paramount challenge to information science and technology. Implicit feedback is key to solving this challenge, as it allows information systems to learn about a user's needs and preferences. The available feedback, however, tends to be limited and its interpretation shows to be difficult. To tackle this challenge, we present a user study that explores whether tracking the eyes can unpack part of the complexity inherent to relevance and relevance decisions. The eye behavior of 30 participants reading 18 news articles was compared with their subjectively appraised comprehensibility and interest at a discourse level. Using linear regression models, the eye-tracking signal explained 49.93% (comprehensibility) and 30.41% (interest) of variance (p < .001). We conclude that eye behavior provides implicit feedback beyond accuracy that enables new forms of adaptation and interaction support for personalized information systems.

0.04587933 = product of:
  0.13763799 = sum of:
    0.13763799 = weight(_text_:interest in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13763799 = score(doc=524,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.54892015 = fieldWeight in 524, 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=524)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Given the aging world, it is important to understand older adults' everyday life information seeking (ELIS), which plays a vital role in healthy aging in later life. The present study analyzed national survey data collected by the Pew Research Center in 2016 based on Savolainen's ELIS model. The model's core concept, mastery of life, was measured in terms of general coping style to find information (cognitive vs. affective) and expectations about the findability of necessary information (optimistic vs. pessimistic). Weighted multiregression analyses were conducted to examine the associations between mastery of life and ELIS behavior of older Americans (65 years or older) in terms of breath and depth of interest in everyday topics, holding other sociocultural and demographic factors constant. The results showed a cognitive, as opposed to affective, coping style was associated with a wider range of ELIS topics and a deeper level of interest in political and cultural topics. However, whether an individual had an optimistic or pessimistic perspective toward information seeking was not associated with the variety or depth of interest in everyday topics. Neither dimension was related to the depth of interest in sports topics. Practical, theoretical, and methodological implications of the findings are provided.

0.038929906 = product of:
  0.11678971 = sum of:
    0.11678971 = weight(_text_:interest in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11678971 = score(doc=327,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.46577424 = fieldWeight in 327, 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=327)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present a collection of algorithms to filter a stream of documents in such a way that the filtered documents will cover as well as possible the interest of a person, keeping in mind that, at any given time, the offered documents should not only be relevant, but should also be diversified, in the sense of covering all the interests of the person. We use a modification of the WEBSOM algorithm to create a user model based on a self-organizing network trained using a collection of documents representative of the person's interests. We introduce the concepts of freshness and coverage. A document is fresh if it belongs to a semantic area of interest to a person for which no documents were seen in the recent past; a group of documents has coverage to the extent to which it is a good representation of all the interests of a person. Our tests show that these algorithms can effectively increase the coverage of the documents that are shown to the user without overly affecting precision.

0.033315543 = product of:
  0.099946626 = sum of:
    0.099946626 = sum of:
      0.045243774 = weight(_text_:classification in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045243774 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
      0.054702852 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054702852 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

2. 3.2020 19:04:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 58(2020) no.1, S.1-27

0.033266842 = product of:
  0.09980053 = sum of:
    0.09980053 = sum of:
      0.058773387 = weight(_text_:classification in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058773387 = score(doc=5996,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
      0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04102714 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper contains a report of two interdependent knowledge organization (KO) projects for an LGBT2QIA+ library. The authors, in the context of volunteer library work for an independent library, redesigned the classification system and subject cataloguing guidelines to centre LGBT2QIA+ subjects. We discuss the priorities of creating and maintaining knowledge organization systems for a historically marginalized community and address the challenge that queer subjectivity poses to the goals of KO. The classification system features a focus on identity and physically reorganizes the library space in a way that accounts for the multiple and overlapping labels that constitute the currently articulated boundaries of this community. The subject heading system focuses on making visible topics and elements of identity made invisible by universal systems and by the newly implemented classification system. We discuss how this project may inform KO for other marginalized subjects, particularly through process and documentation that prioritizes transparency and the acceptance of an unfinished endpoint for queer KO.

Date

6.10.2020 21:22:33

0.032441586 = product of:
  0.09732476 = sum of:
    0.09732476 = weight(_text_:interest in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09732476 = score(doc=471,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38814518 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present a search system for grammatically analyzed corpora of Finnish parliamentary records and interviews with former parliamentarians, annotated with metadata of talk structure and involved parliamentarians, and discuss their use through carefully chosen digital humanities case studies. We first introduce the construction, contents, and principles of use of the corpora. Then we discuss the application of the search system and the corpora to study how politicians talk about power, how ideological terms are used in political speech, and how to identify narratives in the data. All case studies stem from questions in the humanities and the social sciences, but rely on the grammatically parsed corpora in both identifying and quantifying passages of interest. Finally, the paper discusses the role of natural language processing methods for questions in the (digital) humanities. It makes the claim that a digital humanities inquiry of parliamentary speech and interviews with politicians cannot only rely on computational humanities modeling, but needs to accommodate a range of perspectives starting with simple searches, quantitative exploration, and ending with modeling. Furthermore, the digital humanities need a more thorough discussion about how the utilization of tools from information science and technologies alter the research questions posed in the humanities.

Series

JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): C. Methodological innovations, challenges, and new interest in DH

0.032115534 = product of:
  0.0963466 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=12,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 12, 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=12)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We unpack the complexities of the crowdfunder community by identifying different archetypes of crowdfunders funding technology projects on Kickstarter.com. Drawing on the extant literature on innovation adoption and opinion leadership, we propose two dimensions of crowdfunders that capture the heterogeneity in crowdfunders' behavior: opinion leadership and interest specialization of crowdfunders. Using a set of variables representing these two dimensions, our analysis revealed five distinct archetypes of crowdfunders: the Vocal Actives, the Silent Actives, the Focused Enthusiasts, the Trend Followers, and the Star Seekers, who each adopted distinct crowdfunding strategies. We established external and criterion-related validity of the cluster solutions in multiple ways. Our results suggest that the composition of crowdfunders is complex, even within a single platform.

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Open access has long been an ideal of academic publishing. Yet, contrary to initial expectations, cost of access to published scientific knowledge increased following the advent of the Internet and electronic processing. An analysis of the ethicality of current arrangements in academic publishing shows that monetization and the sequestering of scientific knowledge behind paywalls breach the principle of fairness and damage public interest. Following decades of failed effort to redress the situation, there are ethical grounds for consumers of scientific knowledge to invoke the right of collective civil disobedience, including support for pirate open access. Could this be the best option available to consumers of scientific knowledge for removing paywalls to knowledge that rightly belongs in the public domain?

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): C. Methodological innovations, challenges, and new interest in DH

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study examines what happens when an online community (OC) platform is shut down. In particular, it builds on recent interest from information science on everyday life information seeking, providing insights into the socio-emotional roles enacted by users following community closure. A qualitative study is undertaken on 12 months of social media comments relating to the closure of an OC platform. We identify and discuss the socio-emotional information roles that manifest, and present a model of their relationship to different aspects of the closure. We make theoretical connections between the notion of socio-emotional information roles and both the information behavior and practice literature, as well as research on community and participant roles. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.