Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Rafferty, P."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Rafferty, P.: Genette, intertextuality, and knowledge organization (2014) 0.02
    0.017981006 = product of:
      0.06293352 = sum of:
        0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020922182 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1445)
        0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00856136 = score(doc=1445,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1445, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1445)
        0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025420163 = score(doc=1445,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1445, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1445)
        0.008029819 = product of:
          0.024089456 = sum of:
            0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024089456 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1445, 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=1445)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Recent approaches to KO have explored the notion of intertextuality and considered ways in which such abstract concepts derived from literary theory might form the foundation for the design of novel and rich information retrieval systems. In this paper, the notion of intertextuality is examined, and its use by knowledge organization researchers explored. Gerard Genette's work in particular has been used with some success to map out the possibilities offered by applying the concept of intertextuality to the design of information retrieval systems. The paper will examine some KO systems which reveal the traces of intertextual poetics in their design, including the FRBR model which in its mapping of intertextuality, articulates some of Genette's categories while stopping short of actualising the more subjective and interpretative categories. The paper concludes with speculation about whether and how these categories might be accommodated in a Web 2.0 interactive digital bibliosphere.
    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. Rafferty, P.: Disrupting the metanarrative : a little history of image indexing and retrieval (2019) 0.01
    0.0081256945 = product of:
      0.05687986 = sum of:
        0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009988253 = score(doc=4998,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4998, 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=4998)
        0.046891607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046891607 = score(doc=4998,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    The aims of this paper are twofold: to offer a short history of image retrieval, and secondly and relatedly, to critique the metanarrative of modernity emerging in the literature of knowledge organization and information retrieval. The paper re-views the emerging grand narrative in relation to knowledge or-ganization and information retrieval that sees them as specific aspects of modernity and technological efficiency. This grand narrative is particularly interested in technology even when it is contextualising technology. A more nuanced history emerges when the focus moves to the representation, organization, and retrieval of images. This literature foregrounds not only the tech-nology but also issues relating to definitions of the "subject" and issues relating to interpretation and meaning-making.
  3. Vernitski, A.; Rafferty, P.: Approaches to fiction retrieval research : from theory to practice? (2011) 0.01
    0.006964882 = product of:
      0.04875417 = sum of:
        0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00856136 = score(doc=4720,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4720, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4720)
        0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04019281 = score(doc=4720,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 4720, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4720)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter considers fiction retrieval research and initiatives, providing an overview of some of the approaches that have been developed. In particular, it describes two recent approaches to fiction retrieval that have made use of theoretical concepts drawn from literary theory. Fiction is an interesting information domain because it includes documents that serve two purposes, which are reading for pleasure and scholarly study (Beghtol, 1994), but fiction retrieval has not always focused on both aspects. In the 19th century, the approach was to treat fiction from a knowledge perspective within general classification schemes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) contain classes for literature, with the main subdivision in each case being the language in which it is written. Further subdivision is possible based on literary form, historical period or the works of an individual author (Riesthuis, 1997).
    Source
    Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty
  4. Ransom, N.; Rafferty, P.: Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval (2011) 0.01
    0.005516946 = product of:
      0.03861862 = sum of:
        0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017435152 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
        0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021183468 = score(doc=296,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.
  5. Rafferty, P.: Informative tagging of images : the importance of modality in mnterpretation (2011) 0.00
    0.0035812336 = product of:
      0.025068633 = sum of:
        0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010089659 = score(doc=4612,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4612, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4612)
        0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014978974 = score(doc=4612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4612, 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=4612)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    The term "tagging" is widely used for the assigning of terms to information objects in user-driven websites, although a cursory examination of such websites suggests that the communicative functions undertaken by taggers are not always driven by concerns about inter-subjective informative communication. At the heart of the debate about social indexing are issues relating to meaning and interpretation. Even where the intention is to assign informative tags, there is an issue about the relationship between the modality of an information object and its subsequent interpretation in historical time. This paper tests a model of image modality using four test images, which are interpreted and tagged by a group of distance learner students at the Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University. The results are described, and the implications are discussed. Overall, this limited exercise suggests that the modality model might be of some use in categorizing images within an image IR system. The exercise also suggests that leaving annotation and tagging entirely to users could lead to information loss over time. Finally, the exercise suggests that developing a retrieval tool using genre and the intertextual nature of multimedia objects might lead to the construction of rich, knowledge based systems.
  6. Rafferty, P.: FRBR, information, and intertextuality (2015) 0.00
    7.2068995E-4 = product of:
      0.010089659 = sum of:
        0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 5533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010089659 = score(doc=5533,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5533, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5533)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Following from approaches that view information as documentary forms of specific communicative practices, this paper uses theoretical concepts derived from cultural theory to examine the concept of work in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) in relation to authorship, the ur-text, and intertextuality. Historically, the practice of librarianship has existed on a foundation of standards, and among the earliest of the standards is the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). The basis of this set of standards is materialist: the object of scrutiny is the document, and the document, whatever its specific form, is considered to possess materiality. This paper argues that unlike the AACR, FRBR lays bare its own ideological underpinnings, and in so doing, it dematerializes the text and mystifies the creative process. At the same time, it has really been with the development of FRBR and linked-data models that library and information science has considered intertextual analysis at the level of the document rather than at a more abstract level. The idealism that underpins FRBR's notion of work points to intertextuality, with all its potential for rich analysis, but at the same time embeds deep in its system the logocentrism of the ideal signified-another example of disciplining epistemology. The paper will examine these two interlinked themes through discussion of FRBR and the strange case of the vanishing text, the ur-text, and intertextuality.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.
  7. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.00
    5.04483E-4 = product of:
      0.0070627616 = sum of:
        0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070627616 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
  8. Hughes, A.V.; Rafferty, P.: Inter-indexer consistency in graphic materials indexing at the National Library of Wales (2011) 0.00
    3.6034497E-4 = product of:
      0.0050448296 = sum of:
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=4488,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper seeks to report a project to investigate the degree of inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of controlled vocabulary topical subject index terms to identical graphical images by different indexers at the National Library of Wales (NLW). Design/methodology/approach - An experimental quantitative methodology was devised to investigate inter-indexer consistency. Additionally, the project investigated the relationship, if any, between indexing exhaustivity and consistency, and the relationship, if any, between indexing consistency/exhaustivity and broad category of graphic format. Findings - Inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of topical subject index terms to graphic materials at the NLW was found to be generally low and highly variable. Inter-indexer consistency fell within the range 10.8 per cent to 48.0 per cent. Indexing exhaustivity varied substantially from indexer to indexer, with a mean assignment of 3.8 terms by each indexer to each image, falling within the range 2.5 to 4.7 terms. The broad category of graphic format, whether photographic or non-photographic, was found to have little influence on either inter-indexer consistency or indexing exhaustivity. Indexing exhaustivity and inter-indexer consistency exhibited a tendency toward a direct, positive relationship. The findings are necessarily limited as this is a small-scale study within a single institution. Originality/value - Previous consistency studies have almost exclusively investigated the indexing of print materials, with very little research published for non-print media. With the literature also rich in discussion of the added complexities of subjectively representing the intellectual content of visual media, this study attempts to enrich existing knowledge on indexing consistency for graphic materials and to address a noticeable gap in information theory.