-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.03
0.029756546 = product of:
0.13390446 = sum of:
0.019683914 = weight(_text_:und in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019683914 = score(doc=3494,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0574165 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.040656574 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040656574 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.348393 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.040656574 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040656574 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.348393 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.032907397 = product of:
0.049361095 = sum of:
0.024792057 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024792057 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09112809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.024569036 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024569036 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090717286 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.22222222 = coord(4/18)
- Pages
- S.22-36
- Source
- Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011)
0.03
0.028231787 = product of:
0.12704304 = sum of:
0.034848493 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034848493 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
0.034848493 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034848493 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
0.05032632 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05032632 = score(doc=4359,freq=8.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
0.0070197247 = product of:
0.021059174 = sum of:
0.021059174 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021059174 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090717286 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = 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)
0.22222222 = coord(4/18)
- 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
- Field
- Informationswissenschaft
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The nature of information science and its core concepts (2014)
0.02
0.015488219 = product of:
0.13939397 = sum of:
0.069696985 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069696985 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.5972451 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
0.069696985 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069696985 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.5972451 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
- Field
- Informationswissenschaft
-
Hjoerland, B.: Library and information science and the philosophy of science (2005)
0.01
0.014459881 = product of:
0.086759284 = sum of:
0.017062299 = product of:
0.034124598 = sum of:
0.034124598 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034124598 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11547904 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.034848493 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034848493 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
0.034848493 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034848493 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
0.16666667 = coord(3/18)
- Field
- Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft
-
Hjoerland, B.: Comments on the articles and proposals for further work (2005)
0.01
0.014459881 = product of:
0.086759284 = sum of:
0.017062299 = product of:
0.034124598 = sum of:
0.034124598 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034124598 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11547904 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.034848493 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034848493 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
0.034848493 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034848493 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
0.16666667 = coord(3/18)
- Field
- Informationswissenschaft
Bibliothekswesen
-
Hjoerland, B.: Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science (2005)
0.01
0.0120499 = product of:
0.0722994 = sum of:
0.014218582 = product of:
0.028437164 = sum of:
0.028437164 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028437164 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11547904 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.02904041 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02904041 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
0.02904041 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02904041 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
0.16666667 = coord(3/18)
- Field
- Informationswissenschaft
Bibliothekswesen
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : browsing as an example (2011)
0.01
0.006453424 = product of:
0.05808082 = sum of:
0.02904041 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02904041 = score(doc=4774,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
0.02904041 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02904041 = score(doc=4774,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
- Field
- Informationswissenschaft
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The foundation of information science : one world or three? A discussion of Gnoli (2018) (2019)
0.01
0.006453424 = product of:
0.05808082 = sum of:
0.02904041 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02904041 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
0.02904041 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02904041 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11669745 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
0.11111111 = coord(2/18)
- Field
- Informationswissenschaft
-
Hjoerland, B.: Indexing: concepts and theory (2018)
0.00
0.004636487 = product of:
0.08345676 = sum of:
0.08345676 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08345676 = score(doc=4644,freq=22.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.84160745 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Abstract
- This article discusses definitions of index and indexing and provides a systematic overview of kinds of indexes. Theories of indexing are reviewed, and the theoretical basis of both manual indexing and automatic indexing is discussed, and a classification of theories is suggested (rationalist, cognitivist, empiricist, and historicist and pragmatist theories). It is claimed that although many researchers do not consider indexing to be a theoretical issue (or consider it to be a field without theories) indexing is indeed highly theory-laden (and the idea of atheoretical indexing is an oxymoron). An important issue is also the subjectivity of the indexer, in particular, her socio-cultural and paradigmatic background, as for example, when authors of documents are the best indexers of their own documents. The article contains a section about the tools available for indexing in the form of the indexing languages and their nature. It is concluded that the social epistemology first proposed by Jesse Shera in 1951 provides the most fruitful theoretical framework for indexing.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014)
0.00
0.0029798965 = product of:
0.026819069 = sum of:
0.020969298 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020969298 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
0.0058497707 = product of:
0.017549312 = sum of:
0.017549312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017549312 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090717286 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = 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(2/18)
- 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
-
Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022)
0.00
0.0029798965 = product of:
0.026819069 = sum of:
0.020969298 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020969298 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
0.0058497707 = product of:
0.017549312 = sum of:
0.017549312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017549312 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090717286 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = 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(2/18)
- Abstract
- A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.
- Date
- 18.11.2023 13:47:22
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The concept of 'subject' in information science (1992)
0.00
0.002421326 = product of:
0.043583866 = sum of:
0.043583866 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043583866 = score(doc=2247,freq=6.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Abstract
- This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of 'subject' or 'subject matter' in library and information science. Most conceptions of 'subject' in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theorie of 'subject matter' explicit as the first step. ... The different conceptions of 'subject' can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. 'subjective idealism' (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), 'objective idealism' (the rationalistic viewpoint), 'pragmatism' and 'materialism/realism'. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document
-
Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and subject representation : an activity-theoretical approach to information science (1997)
0.00
0.0019770046 = product of:
0.03558608 = sum of:
0.03558608 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03558608 = score(doc=6963,freq=4.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- LCSH
- Indexing
- Subject
- Indexing
-
Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021)
0.00
0.0019770046 = product of:
0.03558608 = sum of:
0.03558608 = weight(_text_:indexing in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03558608 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Hjoerland, B.: Domain analysis in information science : eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative (2002)
0.00
0.0013979534 = product of:
0.02516316 = sum of:
0.02516316 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02516316 = score(doc=4464,freq=2.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Abstract
- What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain-specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways, producing special classifications and thesauri; research an indexing and retrieving specialities, empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed
-
Hjoerland, B.: What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? (2008)
0.00
0.0013979534 = product of:
0.02516316 = sum of:
0.02516316 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02516316 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Abstract
- Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: "What is knowledge organization?" differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval and knowledge organization : a perspective from the philosophy of science
0.00
0.0013979534 = product of:
0.02516316 = sum of:
0.02516316 = weight(_text_:indexing in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02516316 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- 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.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020)
0.00
0.001164961 = product of:
0.020969298 = sum of:
0.020969298 = weight(_text_:indexing in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020969298 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Abstract
- Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
-
Hjoerland, B.: Education in knowledge organization (KO) (2023)
0.00
0.001164961 = product of:
0.020969298 = sum of:
0.020969298 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020969298 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
0.099163525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Abstract
- This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowledge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowledge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowledge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowledge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998)
0.00
9.373292E-4 = product of:
0.016871925 = sum of:
0.016871925 = weight(_text_:und in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016871925 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0574165 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.025905682 = queryNorm
0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
0.055555556 = coord(1/18)
- Source
- nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126
