Search (346 results, page 1 of 18)

0.1958614 = product of:
  0.5484119 = sum of:
    0.047687992 = product of:
      0.14306398 = sum of:
        0.14306398 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14306398 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.14306398 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14306398 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.07153199 = product of:
      0.14306398 = sum of:
        0.14306398 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14306398 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.14306398 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14306398 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.14306398 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14306398 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.35714287 = coord(5/14)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.16321784 = product of:
  0.45700994 = sum of:
    0.039739996 = product of:
      0.11921998 = sum of:
        0.11921998 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11921998 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.11921998 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11921998 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.05960999 = product of:
      0.11921998 = sum of:
        0.11921998 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11921998 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.11921998 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11921998 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.11921998 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11921998 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.35714287 = coord(5/14)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.06631161 = product of:
  0.23209064 = sum of:
    0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042009152 = score(doc=1182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 1182, 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=1182)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1182, 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=1182)
    0.14297746 = weight(_text_:henry in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14297746 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23560001 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.84674 = idf(docFreq=46, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6068653 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.84674 = idf(docFreq=46, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1182, 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=1182)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Significant changes in how video games are made and distributed require catalogers to critically reflect on existing approaches for representing games in library catalogs. Digital distribution channels are quickly supplanting releases of games on physical media while also facilitating a dramatic increase in independent-made games that incorporate novel subject matter and styles of gameplay. This paper presents an action research project cataloging 18 independently-made digital games from a small publisher, Choice of Games, considering how descriptive cataloging, subject cataloging, and name authority control for these works compares to mainstream video games.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.7-8, S.792-814

0.060767807 = product of:
  0.21268731 = sum of:
    0.0526639 = weight(_text_:classification in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0526639 = score(doc=709,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
    0.057587784 = product of:
      0.11517557 = sum of:
        0.11517557 = weight(_text_:schemes in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11517557 = score(doc=709,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.71683466 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04977173 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04977173 = score(doc=709,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
    0.0526639 = weight(_text_:classification in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0526639 = score(doc=709,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

We investigated the extent to which the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification reflect the organizational structures of Australian universities. The mapping of the faculty structures of ten universities to the two schemes showed strong alignment, with very few fields represented in the names of the organizational units not covered at all by either bibliographic scheme. This suggests a degree of universality and "scientific and educational consensus" with respect to both the schemes and academic disciplines. The article goes on to discuss the concept of discipline and its application in bibliographic classification.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.2, p.194-213

0.046148248 = product of:
  0.16151886 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 233, 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=233)
    0.058276117 = weight(_text_:classification in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058276117 = score(doc=233,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=233,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 233, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.058276117 = weight(_text_:classification in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058276117 = score(doc=233,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

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.

0.040487964 = product of:
  0.14170787 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=718,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 718, 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=718)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 718, 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=718)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

In the face of the ever-increasing document volume, libraries around the globe are more and more exploring (semi-) automated approaches to subject indexing. This helps sustain bibliographic objectives, enrich metadata, and establish more connections across documents from various collections, effectively leading to improved information retrieval and access. However, generally accepted automated approaches that are functional in operative systems are lacking. This article aims to provide an overview of basic principles used for automated subject indexing, major approaches in relation to their possible application in actual library systems, existing working examples, as well as related challenges calling for further research.

Footnote

Teil eines Themenheftes: Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated processes for subject sccess

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.8, p.702-719

0.037514914 = product of:
  0.1313022 = sum of:
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=212,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
    0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041207436 = score(doc=212,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

The classification of Western art music is a complex area of knowledge organization, yet the reasons for those complexities have not been fully studied. This research dissects the concept of orthogonality, in particular regard to music classification. Orthogonality (antonym: dependency) means that one facet acts independently from another facet. Although orthogonality is an assumed quality of facets, it has attracted relatively little attention in knowledge organization discourse. This research utilizes bibliographic classification schemes, musicological writings, and musical works to analyze orthogonality in music classification. The relationships between the medium, form/genre, and function facets are unpicked and a strong dependency is found between these facets. Whether this orthogonality exists as a construct of faceted classification or stems from the domain knowledge is explored. Furthermore, the analysis initiates new thinking about the general concept of orthogonality. The idea of a spectrum of dependency is proposed. In addition, novel, orthogonality-derived phenomena are discussed-"dynamic facets" and "meta-dependency"-where the boundary between what is and is not a facet is blurred. The concluding model visualizes the chain of dependencies between music facets, ultimately showing how the lack of orthogonality plays a key role in the complexity and issues found in music classification.

0.036646504 = product of:
  0.17101702 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
    0.07065603 = weight(_text_:classification in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07065603 = score(doc=724,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7389137 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
    0.07065603 = weight(_text_:classification in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07065603 = score(doc=724,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7389137 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The Wikidata gadget, CCLitBox, for the automated classification of literary authors and works by a faceted classification and using Linked Open Data (LOD) is presented. The tool reproduces the classification algorithm of class O Literature of the Colon Classification and uses data freely available in Wikidata to create Colon Classification class numbers. CCLitBox is totally free and enables any user to classify literary authors and their works; it is easily accessible to everybody; it uses LOD from Wikidata but missing data for classification can be freely added if necessary; it is readymade for any cooperative and networked project.

Footnote

Teil eines Themenheftes: Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated processes for subject sccess

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.8, p.835-852

0.035397515 = product of:
  0.123891294 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 708, 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=708)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=708,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 708, 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=708)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=708,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 708, 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=708)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Ethics are principles which provide a framework for making decisions that best reflect a set of values. Cataloging carries power, so ethical decision-making is crucial. Because cataloging requires decision-making in areas that differ from other library work, cataloging ethics are a distinct subset of library ethics. Cataloging ethics draw on the primary values of serving the needs of users and providing access to materials. Cataloging ethics are not new, but they have received increased attention since the 1970s. Major current issues in cataloging ethics include the creation of a code of ethics; ongoing debate on the appropriate role of neutrality in cataloging misleading materials and in subject heading lists and classification schemes; how and to what degree considerations of privacy and self-determination should shape authority work; and whether or not our current cataloging codes are sufficiently user-focused.

Content

Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1871458 Teil eines Themenheftes: Cataloging and Classification: Back to Basics.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.2/3, S.281-304

0.03434308 = product of:
  0.12020077 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 5883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=5883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 5883, 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=5883)
    0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 5883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03761707 = score(doc=5883,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 5883, 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=5883)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 5883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=5883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 5883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 5883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03761707 = score(doc=5883,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 5883, 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=5883)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

The Basics Concept Classification (BCC) is a "universal" scheme: it attempts to encompass all areas of human understanding. Whereas most universal schemes are organized around scholarly disciplines, the BCC is instead organized around phenomena (things), the relationships that exist among phenomena, and the properties that phenomena and relators may possess. This structure allows the BCC to apply facet analysis without requiring the use of "facet indicators." The main motivation for the BCC was a recognition that existing classifications that are organized around disciplines serve interdisciplinary scholarship poorly. Complex concepts that might be understood quite differently across groups and individuals can generally be broken into basic concepts for which there is enough shared understanding for the purposes of classification. Documents, ideas, and objects are classified synthetically by combining entries from the schedules of phenomena, relators, and properties. The inclusion of separate schedules of-generally verb-like-relators is one of the most unusual aspects of the BCC. This (and the schedules of properties that serve as adjectives or adverbs) allows the production of sentence-like subject strings. Documents can then be classified in terms of the main arguments made in the document. BCC provides very precise descriptors of documents by combining phenomena, relators, and properties synthetically. The terminology employed in the BCC reduces terminological ambiguity. The BCC is still being developed and it needs to be fleshed out in certain respects. Yet it also needs to be applied; only in application can the feasibility and desirability of the classification be adequately assessed.

Object

Basics Concept Classification

0.033937007 = product of:
  0.1583727 = sum of:
    0.060187314 = weight(_text_:classification in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060187314 = score(doc=1109,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6294329 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
    0.03799808 = product of:
      0.07599616 = sum of:
        0.07599616 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07599616 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4729882 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.060187314 = weight(_text_:classification in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060187314 = score(doc=1109,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6294329 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This paper examines the predominant systems used for the classification of print-based cartographic materials (primarily atlases and sheet maps). We present the results of a brief, widely distributed survey on the topic, followed by discussions of the distinctive characteristics of the classification systems used by survey respondents. The Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification systems were found to be widely used, with several other schemes also in use.

0.033755198 = product of:
  0.11814319 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=5996,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=5996,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=5996,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

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

0.032754723 = product of:
  0.114641525 = sum of:
    0.044100422 = weight(_text_:subject in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044100422 = score(doc=1152,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=1152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1152, 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=1152)
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=1152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=1152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1152, 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=1152)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This study examines subject and genre representation in metadata that describes information resources created for children and young adult audiences. Both quantitative and limited qualitative analyses were applied to the analysis of WorldCat records collected in 2021 and contributed by the Children's and Young Adults' Cataloging Program at the US Library of Congress. This dataset contains records created several years prior to the data collection point and edited by various OCLC member institutions. Findings provide information on the level and patterns of application of these kinds of metadata important for information access, with a focus on the fields, subfields, and controlled vocabularies used. The discussion of results includes a detailed evaluation of genre and subject metadata quality (accuracy, completeness, and consistency).

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.1, p.47-66

0.032000832 = product of:
  0.11200291 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 728, 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=728)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 728, 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=728)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Faceted navigation is already a standard feature of contemporary Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). The article aims to indicate practices in this area and new affordances that faceted navigation provides. The content of 55 Polish university library websites and their OPACs using faceted navigation was analyzed. After selecting the subject facets, the source of the terms constituting their content was analyzed using the MARC 21 bibliographic record format structure. During the transfer of traditional KOS affordances to those of faceted navigation, the former knowledge organization (KO) structures were deconstructed, which may require the creation of a new kind of KOS.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.1, p.86-111

0.032000832 = product of:
  0.11200291 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1141, 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=1141)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1141, 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=1141)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Bibliographic records can include information from controlled vocabularies to capture identities about individuals, especially about authors or intended audiences; personal name authority records can also contain information about identity. Employing a systematic analysis of the overlap of the Homosaurus, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT), this article explores the extent to which LGBTQ+ identities are represented in the three vocabularies. Despite LCSH's long, iterative history of development and the faceted, post-coordinate nature of LCDGT, neither vocabulary was found to be adequate in covering the complex, LGBTQ+ identities represented in the Homosaurus.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.6-7, p.490-513

0.031521946 = product of:
  0.11032681 = sum of:
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04022163 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.016272005 = product of:
      0.03254401 = sum of:
        0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03254401 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Date

2. 3.2020 19:04:22

Source

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

0.031475578 = product of:
  0.14688602 = sum of:
    0.040374875 = weight(_text_:classification in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040374875 = score(doc=175,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4222364 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
    0.040374875 = weight(_text_:classification in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040374875 = score(doc=175,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4222364 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
    0.06613628 = product of:
      0.13227256 = sum of:
        0.13227256 = weight(_text_:texts in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13227256 = score(doc=175,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.8035678 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop a model for automated classification of old digitised texts to the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), using machine-learning methods. Design/methodology/approach The general research approach is inherent to design science research, in which the problem of UDC assignment of the old, digitised texts is addressed by developing a machine-learning classification model. A corpus of 70,000 scholarly texts, fully bibliographically processed by librarians, was used to train and test the model, which was used for classification of old texts on a corpus of 200,000 items. Human experts evaluated the performance of the model. Findings Results suggest that machine-learning models can correctly assign the UDC at some level for almost any scholarly text. Furthermore, the model can be recommended for the UDC assignment of older texts. Ten librarians corroborated this on 150 randomly selected texts. Research limitations/implications The main limitations of this study were unavailability of labelled older texts and the limited availability of librarians. Practical implications The classification model can provide a recommendation to the librarians during their classification work; furthermore, it can be implemented as an add-on to full-text search in the library databases. Social implications The proposed methodology supports librarians by recommending UDC classifiers, thus saving time in their daily work. By automatically classifying older texts, digital libraries can provide a better user experience by enabling structured searches. These contribute to making knowledge more widely available and useable. Originality/value These findings contribute to the field of automated classification of bibliographical information with the usage of full texts, especially in cases in which the texts are old, unstructured and in which archaic language and vocabulary are used.

0.0308804 = product of:
  0.1080814 = sum of:
    0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03675035 = score(doc=5787,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=5787,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5787, 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=5787)
    0.0237488 = product of:
      0.0474976 = sum of:
        0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0474976 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=5787,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5787, 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=5787)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This study considers the expressiveness (that is the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the Semantic Web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.

0.03041722 = product of:
  0.14194703 = sum of:
    0.07201569 = weight(_text_:subject in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201569 = score(doc=453,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.67061174 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=453,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 453, 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=453)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=453,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 453, 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=453)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a case study of how well subject metadata (comprising headings from an international classification scheme) has been deployed in a national data catalogue, and how often data seekers use subject metadata when searching for data. Through an analysis of user search behaviour as recorded in search logs, we find evidence that users utilise the subject metadata for data discovery. Since approximately half of the records ingested by the catalogue did not include subject metadata at the time of harvest, we experimented with automatic subject classification approaches in order to enrich these records and to provide additional support for user search and data discovery. Our results show that automatic methods work well for well represented categories of subject metadata, and these categories tend to have features that can distinguish themselves from the other categories. Our findings raise implications for data catalogue providers; they should invest more effort to enhance the quality of data records by providing an adequate description of these records for under-represented subject categories.

0.028908364 = product of:
  0.1349057 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=5900,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
    0.049448926 = weight(_text_:classification in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049448926 = score(doc=5900,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
    0.049448926 = weight(_text_:classification in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049448926 = score(doc=5900,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.