Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0061918716 = product of:
  0.027863422 = sum of:
    0.020551153 = weight(_text_:access in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551153 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
    0.0073122694 = product of:
      0.021936808 = sum of:
        0.021936808 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021936808 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

0.0055371 = product of:
  0.0498339 = sum of:
    0.0498339 = weight(_text_:access in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0498339 = score(doc=3959,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.45403582 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The problem of access to marginalized knowledge using general subject access standards is well-established, but few successful solutions have been developed. This paper surveys four different approaches to ameliorating bias: revision of general standards, adaptation of general standards, specialized standards for particular knowledge domains and specialized standards for particular situations. lt then examines their technological alternatives and institutional barriers to solutions. The analysis of standards, technologies and barriers is addressed through Ursula Franklin's interpretation of the real world of technology.

0.0047460855 = product of:
  0.04271477 = sum of:
    0.04271477 = weight(_text_:access in 5428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04271477 = score(doc=5428,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.38917357 = fieldWeight in 5428, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5428)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Critiques of subject access standards in LIS literature have addressed biases of gender, sexuality, race, age, ability, ethnicity, language and religion as limits to the representation of diversity and to effective library service for diverse populations. The current study identifies and analyzes this literature as a basis for ameliorating systemic bias and to gather the existing literature for wider accessibility. The study analyzes five quantitative variables: standards discussed, categories of problems, marginalized groups and topics discussed, date, and basis of conclusions (research or experience). Textual analysis reveals that basic tenets of subject access-user-focused cataloguing, objectivity, and standardization-are problematized in the literature and may be the best starting point for future research. In practice, librarians can work to counteract systemic problems in the careful and equitable application of standards and their adaptation to local contexts.

0.004566923 = product of:
  0.041102305 = sum of:
    0.041102305 = weight(_text_:access in 4137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041102305 = score(doc=4137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 4137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4137)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.004030729 = product of:
  0.036276564 = sum of:
    0.036276564 = weight(_text_:open in 858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036276564 = score(doc=858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 858, 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=858)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Classifications are bounded systems that marginalize some groups and topics by locating them in ghettoes, diasporized across the system. Other marginalized groups and topics are totally excluded from these systems, being outside of their territorial limits. Because classifications are locational systems, spatial analyses borrowed from various disciplines have potential to identify and address their problems. The philosophical basis for the analysis in this article is Lorraine Code's (1995) conception of "rhetorical spaces" as sites where topics can be taken seriously as legitimate subjects for open discussion. In existing classifications, there is rhetorical space for most mainstream social and scholarly knowledge domains but not for marginalized knowledge domains. Geography offers concepts for building a theoretical framework to ameliorate the biases of classification. This article describes such a framework and how it is applied using techniques such as Gillian Rose's (1993) "paradoxical spaces," which are simultaneously or alternately in the center and at the margin, same and other, inside and outside to develop a more complex and meaningful classification for women and other marginalized groups. The project described here operationalizes these theoretical openings by applying them to the Dewey Decimal Classification as both critique and as techniques for change.

0.0038751625 = product of:
  0.034876462 = sum of:
    0.034876462 = weight(_text_:access in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034876462 = score(doc=422,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 422, 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=422)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The changing role of libraries demands examination of the impact of the 21st century book market. Traditionally, public libraries have provided access to information in a physical form, but the purpose of the library has remained unchanged, that of providing access to information for all users. The increasing emphasis on electronic collections has led librarians to consider the issues involved with electronic sources. Changes in the book market, including globalization and the inclusion of the ebook affect libraries in many ways. This paper will examine the effect of globalization on the library and its relationship with publishers and publisher groups.

0.0031968462 = product of:
  0.028771617 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 5610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=5610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5610, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5610)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings have traditionally attempted to reflect reality neutrally. The result is bias in representing cultural margins. While neutrality is one of the ethical stances espoused by librarianship, another is universal and equitable access to information for the betterment of humanity. This paper views LCSH as a potential tool for cultural change using Homi Bhabha's postcolonial concept of a Third Space as a model. LCSH functions as a Third Space where the meanings of documents are constructed and enunciated for library users. Therefore, it is in LCSH that there is potential for instigating change

0.0022834614 = product of:
  0.020551153 = sum of:
    0.020551153 = weight(_text_:access in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551153 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2214, 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=2214)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to examine interindexer consistency on a larger scale than other studies have done to determine if group consensus is reached by larger numbers of indexers and what, if any, relationships emerge between assigned terms. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 64 MLIS students were recruited to assign up to five terms to a document. The authors applied basic data modeling and the exploratory statistical techniques of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis to determine whether relationships exist in indexing consistency and the coocurrence of assigned terms. Findings - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms to a document follows an inverse shape, although it is not strictly power law-based unlike many other social phenomena. The exploratory techniques revealed that groups of terms clustered together. The resulting term cooccurrence relationships were largely syntagmatic. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on the indexing of one article by non-expert indexers and are, thus, not generalizable. Based on the study findings, along with the growing popularity of folksonomies and the apparent authority of communally developed information resources, communally developed indexes based on group consensus may have merit. Originality/value - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms has been studied primarily on a small scale. Few studies have examined indexing on a larger scale with more than a handful of indexers. Recognition of the differences in indexing assignment has implications for the development of public information systems, especially those that do not use a controlled vocabulary and those tagged by end-users. In such cases, multiple access points that accommodate the different ways that users interpret content are needed so that searchers may be guided to relevant content despite using different terminology.

0.0011374641 = product of:
  0.010237177 = sum of:
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

9.7496924E-4 = product of:
  0.008774723 = sum of:
    0.008774723 = product of:
      0.026324168 = sum of:
        0.026324168 = weight(_text_:22 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026324168 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1443, 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=1443)
      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