Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 4
precises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 4
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c heery evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 4
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bloss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 4
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bloss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 4

Feinberg, M.: Two kinds of evidence : how information systems form rhetorical arguments (2010) 0.01
```
0.011341468 = product of:
  0.07939027 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=3958,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3958, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3958)
    0.058172442 = product of:
      0.116344884 = sum of:
        0.116344884 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.116344884 = score(doc=3958,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.72411233 = fieldWeight in 3958, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
```
Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to examine how systems for organizing information construct rhetorical arguments for a particular interpretation of their subject matter. Design/methodology/approach - The paper synthesizes a conceptual framework from the field of rhetoric and uses that framework to analyze how existing organizational schemes present evidence in support of arguments regarding the material being organized. Findings - Organizational schemes can present logical arguments as posed in rhetoric, using two forms of evidence for their claims: relationship evidence from the category structure and resource evidence from the ways that items are assigned to categories. Research limitations/implications - This study does not attempt to identify all types of evidence that organizational schemes might use in argumentation. Further research may describe additional forms of evidence and argumentative structures. Practical implications - When creating organizational schemes, designers might develop a strategy to facilitate persuasive argumentation. Moreover, because arguments may be either strengthened or undermined through the assignment of resources to categories, both indexing and collection development may be seen as contributing to the overall design of an organizational scheme. Originality/value - While many researchers have asserted that organizational schemes form arguments, and while various studies have described what information systems might be said to communicate, this study focuses on how such communication may take place more or less effectively. This analysis foregrounds the potential for organizational schemes to be systematically and purposefully designed as rhetorical communication, to express particular ideas.

Feinberg, M.: Factotem: what is information access for? (2018) 0.01

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5186, 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=5186)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5186, 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=5186)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.8, S.665-682

Feinberg, M.: ¬An integrative approach to the design of knowledge organization systems (2010) 0.00
```
0.0030006538 = product of:
  0.042009152 = sum of:
    0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 3528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042009152 = score(doc=3528,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 3528, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3528)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
```
Abstract

This paper describes a design process for knowledge organization systems (KOS) that negotiates between the communicative goals of an author, the information needs of an audience, and the structure of existing subject literature. In the proposed process, the category structures that constitute typical KOSs are designed in the context of envisioned audience interactions with an information system's resources, and as the support through which an author (or classificationist) expresses rhetorical goals regarding the subject matter being collected, organized, and made available for access.
Feinberg, M.: Compiler to author : a process for designing rhetorically aware document collections (2011) 0.00
```
0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
```
Abstract

Although neutrality has been extensively questioned as a design principle for document collections and their descriptive infrastructures, little research has investigated how this conceptual shift might affect the collection designer's task. This article describes the development and evaluation of a design process to author document collections with an acknowledged rhetorical purpose: collections with a design goal to persuasively communicate a position on their material to an identified audience. Following principles of design research, the process was developed via the creation of two prototype collections. The process was then implemented in a classroom setting. Over the course of a semester, 16 participants used the design process both as individuals and in teams to create rhetorically aware document collections. Although study participants successfully used the process to create collections that persuasively expressed a position on their subject matter, reflections on their design experiences showed that the student designers felt some ambivalence regarding the assumption of authorial power.