Search (99 results, page 1 of 5)

0.05747872 = product of:
  0.12932712 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.031331215 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031331215 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.06644897 = weight(_text_:techniques in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06644897 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3893711 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.02099476 = product of:
      0.04198952 = sum of:
        0.04198952 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04198952 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

This paper examnines various isues that arise in establishing a theoretical basis for an experimental fiction analysis system. It analyzes the warrants of fiction and of works about fiction. From this analysis, it derives classificatory requirements for a fiction system. Classificatory techniques that may contribute to the specification of data elements in fiction are suggested

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.047670357 = product of:
  0.14301106 = sum of:
    0.019385567 = weight(_text_:information in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019385567 = score(doc=1958,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
    0.046996824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046996824 = score(doc=1958,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
    0.07662868 = product of:
      0.15325736 = sum of:
        0.15325736 = weight(_text_:theories in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15325736 = score(doc=1958,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.7242289 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1383-1392

0.038866967 = product of:
  0.087450676 = sum of:
    0.04038069 = weight(_text_:line in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04038069 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.18587546 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.0039570625 = weight(_text_:information in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039570625 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.035239886 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035239886 = score(doc=2293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2064952 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.007873035 = product of:
      0.01574607 = sum of:
        0.01574607 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01574607 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...
This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.036365516 = product of:
  0.10909654 = sum of:
    0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018466292 = score(doc=6032,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
    0.063215435 = product of:
      0.12643087 = sum of:
        0.12643087 = weight(_text_:theories in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12643087 = score(doc=6032,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.59745836 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.774-778

Theme

Information

0.034748282 = product of:
  0.10424484 = sum of:
    0.013707667 = weight(_text_:information in 3953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013707667 = score(doc=3953,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3953, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3953)
    0.040700447 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040700447 = score(doc=3953,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3953, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3953)
    0.049836725 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049836725 = score(doc=3953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2920283 = fieldWeight in 3953, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3953)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper endeavours to show the possibilities for thematic description of audio-visual documents for television with the aim of promoting and facilitating information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - To achieve these goals different database fields are shown, as well as the way in which they are organised for indexing and thematic element description, analysed and used as an example. Some of the database fields are extracted from an analytical study of the documentary system of television in Spain. Others are being tested in university television on which indexing experiments are carried out. Findings - Not all thematic descriptions are used on television information systems; nevertheless, some television channels do use thematic descriptions of both image and sound, applying thesauri. Moreover, it is possible to access sequences using full text retrieval as well. Originality/value - The development of the documentary task, applying the described techniques, promotes thematic indexing and hence thematic retrieval. Given the fact that this is without doubt one of the aspects most demanded by television journalists (along with people's names). This conceptualisation translates into the adaptation of databases to new indexing methods.

0.03221888 = product of:
  0.14498496 = sum of:
    0.06192375 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06192375 = score(doc=837,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
    0.08306122 = weight(_text_:techniques in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08306122 = score(doc=837,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.4867139 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide a better-informed view of the extent of the semantic gap in image retrieval, and the limited potential for bridging it offered by current semantic image retrieval techniques. Design/methodology/approach - Within an ongoing project, a broad spectrum of operational image retrieval activity has been surveyed, and, from a number of collaborating institutions, a test collection assembled which comprises user requests, the images selected in response to those requests, and their associated metadata. This has provided the evidence base upon which to make informed observations on the efficacy of cutting-edge automatic annotation techniques which seek to integrate the text-based and content-based image retrieval paradigms. Findings - Evidence from the real-world practice of image retrieval highlights the existence of a generic-specific continuum of object identification, and the incidence of temporal, spatial, significance and abstract concept facets, manifest in textual indexing and real-query scenarios but often having no directly visible presence in an image. These factors combine to limit the functionality of current semantic image retrieval techniques, which interpret only visible features at the generic extremity of the generic-specific continuum. Research limitations/implications - The project is concerned with the traditional image retrieval environment in which retrieval transactions are conducted on still images which form part of managed collections. The possibilities offered by ontological support for adding functionality to automatic annotation techniques are considered. Originality/value - The paper offers fresh insights into the challenge of migrating content-based image retrieval from the laboratory to the operational environment, informed by newly-assembled, comprehensive, live data.

0.030032616 = product of:
  0.090097845 = sum of:
    0.01615464 = weight(_text_:information in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01615464 = score(doc=4888,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
    0.055386286 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055386286 = score(doc=4888,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
    0.01855692 = product of:
      0.03711384 = sum of:
        0.03711384 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03711384 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

This paper centres on the tools for the management of new digital documents, which are not only textual, but also visual-video, audio or multimedia in the full sense. Among the aims is to demonstrate that operating within the terms of generic Information Retrieval through textual language only is limiting, and it is instead necessary to consider ampler criteria, such as those of MultiMedia Information Retrieval, according to which, every type of digital document can be analyzed and searched by the proper elements of language for its proper nature. MMIR is presented as the organic complex of the systems of Text Retrieval, Visual Retrieval, Video Retrieval, and Audio Retrieval, each of which has an approach to information management that handles the concrete textual, visual, audio, or video content of the documents directly, here defined as content-based. In conclusion, the limits of this content-based objective access to documents is underlined. The discrepancy known as the semantic gap is that which occurs between semantic-interpretive access and content-based access. Finally, the integration of these conceptions is explained, gathering and composing the merits and the advantages of each of the approaches and of the systems to access to information.

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Enser, P.G.B.: Visual image retrieval. In: Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.3-42.

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

0.026183546 = product of:
  0.07855064 = sum of:
    0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009326885 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
    0.027693143 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027693143 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
    0.04153061 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04153061 = score(doc=2347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Purpose - If an information retrieval system is going to be of value to the user then it must give meaning to the information which matches the meaning given to it by the user. The meaning given to music varies according to who is interpreting it - the author/composer, the performer, cataloguer or the listener - and this affects how music is organized and retrieved. This paper aims to examine the meaning of music, how meaning is communicated and suggests this may affect music retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Musicology is used to define music and examine its functions leading to a discussion of how music has been organised and described. Various ways of establishing the meaning of music are reviewed, focussing on established musical analysis techniques. It is suggested that traditional methods are of limited use with digitised popular music. A discussion of semiotics and a review of semiotic analysis in western art music leads to a discussion of semiotics of popular music and examines ideas of Middleton, Stefani and Tagg. Findings - Agreeing that music exists when communication takes place, a discussion of selected communication models leads to the proposal of a revised version of Tagg's model, adjusting it to include listener feedback. Originality/value - The outcome of the analysis is a revised version of Tagg's communication model, adapted to reflect user feedback. It is suggested that this revised communication model reflects the way in which meaning is given to music.

0.024498975 = product of:
  0.07349692 = sum of:
    0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007914125 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
    0.049836725 = weight(_text_:techniques in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049836725 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2920283 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
    0.01574607 = product of:
      0.03149214 = sum of:
        0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03149214 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.020996505 = product of:
  0.09448428 = sum of:
    0.011423056 = weight(_text_:information in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011423056 = score(doc=612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
    0.08306122 = weight(_text_:techniques in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08306122 = score(doc=612,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.4867139 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.291-306

0.020485315 = product of:
  0.09218392 = sum of:
    0.04748385 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04748385 = score(doc=904,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
    0.044700064 = product of:
      0.08940013 = sum of:
        0.08940013 = weight(_text_:theories in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08940013 = score(doc=904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.42246687 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Examines Panofsky's and Barthes's theories of image analysis and reports on a study of criteria for analysis and indexing of images and the different types of user queries used in 15 Danish newspaper image archives. A structured interview method and observation and various categories for subject analysis were used. The results identify a list of the minimum number of elements and led to user typology of 5 categories. The requirement for retrieval may involve combining images in a more visual way with text-based image retrieval

0.016536037 = product of:
  0.07441216 = sum of:
    0.027415333 = weight(_text_:information in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027415333 = score(doc=1329,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
    0.046996824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046996824 = score(doc=1329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u. L. Kajberg

0.016287982 = product of:
  0.07329592 = sum of:
    0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018466292 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.054829627 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054829627 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

0.0150871845 = product of:
  0.06789233 = sum of:
    0.013707667 = weight(_text_:information in 3832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013707667 = score(doc=3832,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3832, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3832)
    0.05418466 = product of:
      0.10836932 = sum of:
        0.10836932 = weight(_text_:theories in 3832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10836932 = score(doc=3832,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.5121072 = fieldWeight in 3832, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In order to explain how indexers chose their keywords and how their results can differ between each other, focuses on certain properties of the terms rather than on the terms themselves. Bases the study on 4 premises borrowed from research in semiotics, cognitive science, discourse analysis and reading theories. Reports on the methodology used, and some of the findings obtained by comparing properties of indexing terms with the content of titles and abstracts of 844 bibliographic records extracted from a database on environment. Characterizes some tendencies of the special reading which indexing constitutes as a series of properties of the selected or rejected works and explains the differences among several indexers by the porperties toward which they are inclined

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Forging new partnerships in information: converging technologies. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, ASIS'95, Chicago, IL, 9-12 October 1995. Ed.: T. Kinney

0.014521334 = product of:
  0.065346 = sum of:
    0.02064594 = weight(_text_:information in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02064594 = score(doc=946,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
    0.044700064 = product of:
      0.08940013 = sum of:
        0.08940013 = weight(_text_:theories in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08940013 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.42246687 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The philosophy of history can help articulate problems relevant to information organization. One such problem is "aboutness": How do texts relate to the world? In response to this problem, philosophers of history have developed theories of colligation describing how authors bind together phenomena under organizing concepts. Drawing on these ideas, I present a theory of subject analysis that avoids the problematic illusion of an independent "landscape" of subjects. This theory points to a broad vision of the future of information organization and some specific challenges to be met.

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1092-1103

0.013961128 = product of:
  0.06282508 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=2088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
    0.046996824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046996824 = score(doc=2088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

2nd Symposium on Empirical Foundations of Information and Software Science, 3.-5.10.84, Atlanta

0.0136415325 = product of:
  0.061386894 = sum of:
    0.022616494 = weight(_text_:information in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022616494 = score(doc=5828,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
    0.0387704 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0387704 = score(doc=5828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Issues concerning the formulation and application of a model of how humans value information are examined. Formulation of a value function is based on research from modelling, value assessment, human information seeking behavior, and human decision making. The proposed function is incorporated into a computer-based fiction retrieval system and evaluated using data from nine searches. Evaluation is based on the ability of an individual's value function to discriminate among novels selected, rejected, and not considered. The results are discussed in terms of both formulation and utilization of a value function as well as the implications for extending the proposed formulation to other information seeking environments

Source

Information processing and management. 20(1984), S.583-601

0.013489887 = product of:
  0.060704492 = sum of:
    0.013707667 = weight(_text_:information in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013707667 = score(doc=5631,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
    0.046996824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046996824 = score(doc=5631,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Visual materials represent a significantly different type of communication to textual materials and therefore present distinct challenges for the process of retrieval, especially if by retireval we mean intellectual access to the content of images. This paper outlines the special characteristics of visual materials, focusing on their pontential complexity and subjectivity, and the methods used and explored for gaining access to visual materials as reported in the literature. It concludes that methods of access to visual materials are dominated by the relative mature systems developed for textual materials and that access methods based on visual communication are still largely in the developmental or prototype stage. Although reported research on user requirements in the retrieval of visual information is noticeably lacking, the results of at least one study indicate that the visually-based retrieval methods of structured and unstructered browsing seem to be preferred for visula materials and that effective retrieval methods are ultimately related to characteristics of the enquirer and the visual information sought

0.013453664 = product of:
  0.06054149 = sum of:
    0.01305764 = weight(_text_:information in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01305764 = score(doc=1783,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1783, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1783)
    0.04748385 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04748385 = score(doc=1783,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1783, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1783)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Examines how an analytical framework to describe the contents of images may be extended to deal with time based materials like film and music. A levels of meanings table was developed and used as an indexing template for image retrieval purposes. Develops a concept of democratic indexing which focused on user interpretation. Describes the approach to image or pictorial information retrieval. Extends the approach in relation to fiction

Source

Information services and use. 17(1997) nos.2/3, S.101-109

0.013453664 = product of:
  0.06054149 = sum of:
    0.01305764 = weight(_text_:information in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01305764 = score(doc=5844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
    0.04748385 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04748385 = score(doc=5844,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types