Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.01 
    0.01089951 = product of:
  0.038148284 = sum of:
    0.025879284 = product of:
      0.06469821 = sum of:
        0.04484883 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04484883 = score(doc=1398,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    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
  2. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01 
    0.0063811145 = product of:
  0.0223339 = sum of:
    0.0076110996 = product of:
      0.0380555 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=4359,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
  3. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.01 
    0.005470008 = product of:
  0.019145027 = sum of:
    0.0068760267 = product of:
      0.034380134 = sum of:
        0.034380134 = weight(_text_:system in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034380134 = score(doc=629,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organization : a case for boolean retrieval and human decision-making during searches (2015) 0.00 
    0.0036970407 = product of:
  0.025879284 = sum of:
    0.025879284 = product of:
      0.06469821 = sum of:
        0.04484883 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04484883 = score(doc=2124,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=2124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016) 0.00 
    0.002946417 = product of:
  0.020624919 = sum of:
    0.020624919 = product of:
      0.051562294 = sum of:
        0.031712912 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031712912 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.00 
    0.0024538 = product of:
  0.0171766 = sum of:
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Pages
    S.22-36
  7. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The phrase "information storage and retrieval" (IS&R) : an historical note (2015) 0.00 
    0.0012685166 = product of:
  0.008879616 = sum of:
    0.008879616 = product of:
      0.044398077 = sum of:
        0.044398077 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044398077 = score(doc=1853,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1853, 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=1853)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.
  8. Hjoerland, B.; Scerri, E.; Dupré, J.: Forum: The Philosophy of Classification : The Periodic Table and the Philosophy of Classification - What is the Nature of the Periodic Table as a Classification System? - A Note on the Debate Between Hjørland and Scerri on the Significance of the Periodic Table (2011) 0.00 
    6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS) (2015) 0.00 
    6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  10. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The foundation of the concept of relevance (2010) 0.00 
    5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    In 1975 Tefko Saracevic declared the subject knowledge view to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance. This paper examines the assumptions in different views of relevance, including the system's view and the user's view and offers a reinterpretation of these views. The paper finds that what was regarded as the most fundamental view by Saracevic in 1975 has not since been considered (with very few exceptions). Other views, which are based on less fruitful assumptions, have dominated the discourse on relevance in information retrieval and information science. Many authors have reexamined the concept of relevance in information science, but have neglected the subject knowledge view, hence basic theoretical assumptions seem not to have been properly addressed. It is as urgent now as it was in 1975 seriously to consider the subject knowledge view of relevance (which may also be termed the epistemological view). The concept of relevance, like other basic concepts, is influenced by overall approaches to information science, such as the cognitive view and the domain-analytic view. There is today a trend toward a social paradigm for information science. This paper offers an understanding of relevance from such a social point of view.

Authors

Themes