-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.01
0.0059432024 = product of:
0.059432022 = sum of:
0.008576217 = product of:
0.017152434 = sum of:
0.017152434 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017152434 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.014862318 = weight(_text_:u in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014862318 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.035993487 = sum of:
0.001842915 = weight(_text_:a in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.001842915 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.017152434 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017152434 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.016998138 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016998138 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Comments on the articles and proposals for further work (2005)
0.00
0.0027327477 = product of:
0.040991213 = sum of:
0.040079206 = weight(_text_:post in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040079206 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10409636 = queryWeight, product of:
5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.38502026 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
9.120064E-4 = product of:
0.0027360192 = sum of:
0.0027360192 = weight(_text_:a in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0027360192 = score(doc=4409,freq=6.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009)
0.00
0.0022772895 = product of:
0.03415934 = sum of:
0.033399336 = weight(_text_:post in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033399336 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10409636 = queryWeight, product of:
5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.3208502 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
7.6000544E-4 = product of:
0.0022800162 = sum of:
0.0022800162 = weight(_text_:a in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0022800162 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The nature of information science and its core concepts (2014)
0.00
0.0017978373 = product of:
0.026967559 = sum of:
0.025478259 = weight(_text_:u in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025478259 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
0.0014893002 = product of:
0.0044679004 = sum of:
0.0044679004 = weight(_text_:a in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0044679004 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Source
- Theories of information, communication and knowledge : a multidisciplinary approach. Eds.: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan u. T.M. Dousa
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Domain analysis (2017)
0.00
0.0016570432 = product of:
0.024855647 = sum of:
0.0098013915 = product of:
0.019602783 = sum of:
0.019602783 = weight(_text_:29 in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019602783 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.015054256 = product of:
0.022581384 = sum of:
0.0029786006 = weight(_text_:a in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0029786006 = score(doc=3852,freq=4.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
0.019602783 = weight(_text_:29 in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019602783 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- The domain-analytic approach to knowledge organization (KO) (and to the broader field of library and information science, LIS) is outlined. The article reviews the discussions and proposals on the definition of domains, and provides an example of a domain-analytic study in the field of art studies. Varieties of domain analysis as well as criticism and controversies are presented and discussed.
- Date
- 29. 9.2017 19:09:20
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content ... and relevance (2001)
0.00
0.0014759459 = product of:
0.022139188 = sum of:
0.008576217 = product of:
0.017152434 = sum of:
0.017152434 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017152434 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, 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=6032)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.013562972 = product of:
0.020344457 = sum of:
0.0031920224 = weight(_text_:a in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0031920224 = score(doc=6032,freq=6.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
0.017152434 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017152434 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, 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=6032)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 14:03:14
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Fundamentals of knowledge organization (2003)
0.00
0.0014739641 = product of:
0.02210946 = sum of:
0.021231882 = weight(_text_:u in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021231882 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
8.775785E-4 = product of:
0.0026327355 = sum of:
0.0026327355 = weight(_text_:a in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0026327355 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Source
- Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.; Kyllesbech Nielsen, L.: Subject access points in electronic retrieval (2001)
0.00
0.001285624 = product of:
0.019284358 = sum of:
0.018055748 = product of:
0.036111496 = sum of:
0.036111496 = weight(_text_:online in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036111496 = score(doc=3826,freq=4.0), product of:
0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.6638847 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.00122861 = product of:
0.00368583 = sum of:
0.00368583 = weight(_text_:a in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00368583 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Theme
- Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Knowledge organization = Information organization? (2012)
0.00
9.1007573E-4 = product of:
0.013651135 = sum of:
0.012739129 = weight(_text_:u in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012739129 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
9.120064E-4 = product of:
0.0027360192 = sum of:
0.0027360192 = weight(_text_:a in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0027360192 = score(doc=639,freq=6.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.
- Source
- Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Bradford's law of scattering : ambiguities in the concept of "subject" (2005)
0.00
7.793834E-4 = product of:
0.011690751 = sum of:
0.010615941 = weight(_text_:u in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010615941 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
0.0010748099 = product of:
0.0032244297 = sum of:
0.0032244297 = weight(_text_:a in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032244297 = score(doc=157,freq=12.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.
- Source
- Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002)
0.00
4.5964378E-4 = product of:
0.013789313 = sum of:
0.013789313 = product of:
0.020683968 = sum of:
0.00368583 = weight(_text_:a in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00368583 = score(doc=5237,freq=8.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
0.016998138 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016998138 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Abstract
- Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
- Date
- 21. 7.2006 14:11:22
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011)
0.00
4.0975885E-4 = product of:
0.012292765 = sum of:
0.012292765 = product of:
0.018439148 = sum of:
0.0038693151 = weight(_text_:a in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0038693151 = score(doc=4359,freq=12.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
0.014569832 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014569832 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.; Pedersen, K.N.: ¬A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval (2005)
0.00
4.0531837E-4 = product of:
0.0060797753 = sum of:
0.0045597646 = product of:
0.009119529 = sum of:
0.009119529 = weight(_text_:online in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009119529 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0015200109 = product of:
0.0045600324 = sum of:
0.0045600324 = weight(_text_:a in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0045600324 = score(doc=1892,freq=24.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.
- Theme
- Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.; Albrechtsen, H.: ¬An analysis of some trends in classification research (1999)
0.00
3.7563834E-4 = product of:
0.0056345747 = sum of:
0.0045597646 = product of:
0.009119529 = sum of:
0.009119529 = weight(_text_:online in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009119529 = score(doc=6391,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0010748099 = product of:
0.0032244297 = sum of:
0.0032244297 = weight(_text_:a in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032244297 = score(doc=6391,freq=12.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022)
0.00
3.4720692E-4 = product of:
0.010416207 = sum of:
0.010416207 = product of:
0.01562431 = sum of:
0.003482782 = weight(_text_:a in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003482782 = score(doc=1096,freq=14.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
0.012141528 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012141528 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014)
0.00
3.28317E-4 = product of:
0.009849509 = sum of:
0.009849509 = product of:
0.014774263 = sum of:
0.0026327355 = weight(_text_:a in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0026327355 = score(doc=1398,freq=8.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
0.012141528 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012141528 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013)
0.00
3.204788E-4 = product of:
0.009614363 = sum of:
0.009614363 = product of:
0.014421544 = sum of:
0.0022800162 = weight(_text_:a in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0022800162 = score(doc=629,freq=6.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
0.012141528 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012141528 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009)
0.00
2.0948572E-4 = product of:
0.0062845713 = sum of:
0.0062845713 = product of:
0.009426856 = sum of:
0.0033560928 = weight(_text_:a in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033560928 = score(doc=2748,freq=52.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.16239727 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
52.0 = termFreq=52.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
0.006070764 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006070764 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Content
- "This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 18:13:27
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Does informetrics need a theory? : a rejoinder to professor anthony van raan (2017)
0.00
6.080043E-5 = product of:
0.0018240128 = sum of:
0.0018240128 = product of:
0.0054720384 = sum of:
0.0054720384 = weight(_text_:a in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054720384 = score(doc=3967,freq=6.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016)
0.00
5.273591E-5 = product of:
0.0015820772 = sum of:
0.0015820772 = product of:
0.0047462317 = sum of:
0.0047462317 = weight(_text_:a in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047462317 = score(doc=2915,freq=26.0), product of:
0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.017922899 = queryNorm
0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- 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.
- Type
- a
