Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0063936925 = product of:
  0.057543233 = sum of:
    0.057543233 = weight(_text_:access in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057543233 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5242754 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.004836875 = product of:
  0.043531876 = sum of:
    0.043531876 = weight(_text_:open in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043531876 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The notion "theory" is a neglected concept in the field of information science and knowledge organization (KO) as well as generally in philosophy and in many other fields, although there are exceptions from this general neglect (e.g., the so-called "theory theory" in cognitive psychology). This article introduces different conceptions of "theory" and argues that a theory is a statement or a conception, which is considered open to be questioned and which is connected with background assumptions. Theories form interconnected systems of grand, middle rank and micro theories and actions, practices and artifacts are theory-laden. The concept of knowledge organization system (KOS) is briefly introduced and discussed. A theory is a form of KOS and theories are the point of departure of any KOS. It is generally understood in KO that concepts are the units of KOSs, but the theory-dependence of concepts brings theories to the forefront in analyzing concepts and KOSs. The study of theories should therefore be given a high priority within KO concerning the construction and evaluation of KOSs.

0.004030729 = product of:
  0.036276564 = sum of:
    0.036276564 = weight(_text_:open in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036276564 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an influential interdisciplinary movement that originated in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) about 1992. EBP is of considerable interest to library and information science (LIS) because it focuses on a thorough documentation of the basis for the decision making that is established in research as well as an optimization of every link in documentation and search processes. EBP is based on the philosophical doctrine of empiricism and, therefore, it is subject to the criticism that has been raised against empiricism. The main criticism of EBP is that practitioners lose their autonomy, that the understanding of theory and of underlying mechanisms is weakened, and that the concept of evidence is too narrow in the empiricist tradition. In this article, it is suggested that we should speak of "research-based practice" rather than EBP, because this term is open to more fruitful epistemologies and provides a broader understanding of evidence. The focus on scientific argumentation in EBP is an important contribution from EBP to LIS, which is long overdue, but parts of the underlying epistemological assumptions should be replaced: EBP is too narrow, too formalist, and too mechanical an approach on which to base scientific and scholarly documentation.

0.004030729 = product of:
  0.036276564 = sum of:
    0.036276564 = weight(_text_:open in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036276564 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.

0.0038751625 = product of:
  0.034876462 = sum of:
    0.034876462 = weight(_text_:access in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034876462 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Information science (IS) is concerned with the searching and retrieval of text and other information (IR), mostly in electronic databases and on the Internet. Such databases contain fulltext (or other kinds of documents, e.g. pictures) and/or document representations and/or different kinds of 'value added information'. The core theoretical problems for IS is related to the determination of the usefulness of different 'subject access points' in electronic databases. This problem is again related to theories of meaning and semantics. This paper outlines some important principles in the design of documents done in the field of 'composition studies'. It maps the possible subject access points and presents research done on each kind of these. It shows how theorie of IR must build on or relate to different theories of concepts and meaning. It discusses 2 contrasting theories of semantics worked out by Ludwig Wittgenstein: 'the picture theory' and 'the theory od language games' and demonstrates the different consequences for such theories for IR. Finally, the implications for information professionals are discussed

0.0027401538 = product of:
  0.024661385 = sum of:
    0.024661385 = weight(_text_:access in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024661385 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.

0.0027401538 = product of:
  0.024661385 = sum of:
    0.024661385 = weight(_text_:access in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024661385 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

0.0022834614 = product of:
  0.020551153 = sum of:
    0.020551153 = weight(_text_:access in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551153 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases

0.0018267692 = product of:
  0.016440922 = sum of:
    0.016440922 = weight(_text_:access in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016440922 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.0011417307 = product of:
  0.010275576 = sum of:
    0.010275576 = weight(_text_:access in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010275576 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.093620606 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

It uncovers the main theoretical influences that have affected the representation of art in systems of knowledge organization such as LCC, DDC, UDC and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, and it provides a deep basis for evaluating such systems. Knut Tore Abrahamsen's "Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective" is a modified version of a thesis written at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen. As a thesis it is a major achievement which successfully combines knowledge of music, epistemology, and knowledge organization. This paper may also be seen as an example of how domains can be analyzed and how knowledge organization may be improved in practice. We would like to thank Sanna Talja of the University of Tampere, among other people, for Input an this piece. And now to the rest of the issue: Olof Sundin's "Towards an Understanding of Symbolic Aspects of Professional Information: an Analysis of the Nursing Knowledge Domain" contributes to DA by introducing a deeper understanding of the notion of professions and by uncovering how in some domains, "symbolic" functions of information may be more important than instrumental functions. Rich Gazan's: "Metadata as a Realm of Translation: Merging Knowledge Domains in the Design of an Environmental Information System" demonstrates the problems of merging data collections in interdisciplinary fields, rohen the perceived informational value of different access points varies with disciplinary membership. This is important for the design of systems of metadata. Joe Tennis': "Two Axes of Domains for Domain Analysis" suggests that the notion of domain is underdeveloped in DA. Tennis states, "Hjoerland has provided a hammer, but rohere are the nails?" In addition he raises a question concerning the degree of specialization within a domain. He resolves these issues by proposing two new "axes" to DA. Chaim Zins & David Guttmann's: "Domain Analysis of Social Work: An Example of an Integrated Methodological Approach" represents an empirical approach to the construction of knowledge maps based an representative samples of the literature an social work. In a way, this paper is the most traditional or straightforward approach to knowledge organization in the issue: It suggests a concrete classification based an scientific norms of representation and objectivity.

0.0011374641 = product of:
  0.010237177 = sum of:
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.0011374641 = product of:
  0.010237177 = sum of:
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Pages

S.22-36

9.7496924E-4 = product of:
  0.008774723 = sum of:
    0.008774723 = product of:
      0.026324168 = sum of:
        0.026324168 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026324168 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

8.124744E-4 = product of:
  0.0073122694 = sum of:
    0.0073122694 = product of:
      0.021936808 = sum of:
        0.021936808 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021936808 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

8.124744E-4 = product of:
  0.0073122694 = sum of:
    0.0073122694 = product of:
      0.021936808 = sum of:
        0.021936808 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021936808 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

8.124744E-4 = product of:
  0.0073122694 = sum of:
    0.0073122694 = product of:
      0.021936808 = sum of:
        0.021936808 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021936808 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

4.062372E-4 = product of:
  0.0036561347 = sum of:
    0.0036561347 = product of:
      0.010968404 = sum of:
        0.010968404 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010968404 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27