Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.055494484 = product of:
  0.0924908 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=2423,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2423, 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=2423)
    0.079533584 = weight(_text_:91 in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079533584 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.30782366 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2423, 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=2423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users

Imprint

Medford : Learned Information Inc.

Source

ASIS'91: systems understanding people. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths

Type

a

0.024909604 = product of:
  0.06227401 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=2945,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.054100625 = sum of:
      0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016407004 = score(doc=2945,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: A Festschrift for Clare Beghtol

Type

a

0.012098414 = product of:
  0.030246034 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=119,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 119, 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=119)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 119, 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=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Although postmodernist philosophy is frequently characterized as unconstrained relativism and radical skepticism, It shares with pragmatism a strong antipathy to modernity's separation of mind and body, of subject and object, of the human and the material. The criticisms raised by postmodernism have significant implications for current understandings of classification theory and practice. The critical tenets of pragmatism provide an epistemological framework for the development of classificatory structures that will address current failings and respond to the demands of an increasingly interdisciplinary store of knowledge

Pages

S.16-22

Type

a

0.011608934 = product of:
  0.029022334 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=1451,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
    0.022211181 = product of:
      0.044422362 = sum of:
        0.044422362 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044422362 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Previous studies of user-generated vocabularies (e.g., Golder & Huberman, 2006; Munk & Mork, 2007b; Yoon, 2009) have proposed that a primary source of tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of tags at the basic level of abstraction. However, an investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies did not support this notion. This study analyzed approximately 8000 tags generated by 40 subjects. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned to 36 online resources representing four content categories (TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) and three resource genres (news article, blog, ecommerce) did not find statistically significant preferences in the assignment of tags at the superordinate, subordinate or basic levels of abstraction. Within the framework of Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness , observed variations in the preferred level of abstraction are both natural and phenomenological in that perception and understanding -- and thus the meaning of "things" -- arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects. Operationalization of superordinate, subordinate and basic levels of abstraction using Heidegger's notion of handiness may be able to account for differences in the everyday experiences and activities of taggers, thereby leading to a better understanding of user-generated tagging vocabularies.

Date

5. 9.2014 16:22:27

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

0.011542848 = product of:
  0.028857121 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=302,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.011021191 = product of:
  0.027552977 = sum of:
    0.014156716 = weight(_text_:a in 8903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014156716 = score(doc=8903,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 8903, 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=8903)
    0.013396261 = product of:
      0.026792523 = sum of:
        0.026792523 = weight(_text_:information in 8903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026792523 = score(doc=8903,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 8903, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Imprint

Medford; NJ : Learned Information

Source

The economics of information. ASIS'94. Proc. 57th ASIS Annual Meeting, Alexandria, VA, Oct. 17-20, 1994. Ed.: B. Maxian

Type

a

0.009411185 = product of:
  0.023527961 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
    0.012630116 = product of:
      0.025260232 = sum of:
        0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025260232 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 33(1998), S.131-186

Type

a

0.009228281 = product of:
  0.0230707 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=834,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 834, 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=834)
    0.013535086 = product of:
      0.027070172 = sum of:
        0.027070172 = weight(_text_:information in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027070172 = score(doc=834,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Examination of the systemic properties and forms of interaction that characterize classification and categorization reveals fundamental syntactic differences between the structure of classification systems and the structure of categorization systems. These distinctions lead to meaningful differences in the contexts within which information can be apprehended and influence the semantic information available to the individual. Structural and semantic differences between classification and categorization are differences that make a difference in the information environment by influencing the functional activities of an information system and by contributing to its constitution as an information environment.

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information

Type

a

0.009206772 = product of:
  0.02301693 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=3353,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
    0.012355788 = product of:
      0.024711575 = sum of:
        0.024711575 = weight(_text_:information in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024711575 = score(doc=3353,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Attempts to automate classification have focused on mimicking the intellectual processes whereby human classifiers assign entities to mutually exclusive groups that exhibit or more shared characteristics. A more viable approach might be to construct an adaptive retrieval system that produces groupings of related entities by generating dynamic categories based on document content and on the system's emergent structure as it adapts to modifications in the database and to observed patterns of access. Presents a theoretical model for adaptive information networks using relevance feedback and genetic algorithms to generate emergent structure

Imprint

Alberta : Alberta University, School of Library and Information Studies

Source

Connectedness: information, systems, people, organizations. Proceedings of CAIS/ACSI 95, the proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science. Ed. by Hope A. Olson and Denis B. Ward

Type

a

0.009092018 = product of:
  0.022730045 = sum of:
    0.011678694 = weight(_text_:a in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011678694 = score(doc=2251,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
    0.011051352 = product of:
      0.022102704 = sum of:
        0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102704 = score(doc=2251,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

This paper outlines a formal and systematic approach to explication of the role of structure in information organization. It presents a preliminary set of constructs that are useful for understanding the similarities and differences that obtain across information organization systems. This work seeks to provide necessary groundwork for development of a theory of structure that can serve as a lens through which to observe patterns across systems of information organization.

Type

a

0.00895509 = product of:
  0.022387726 = sum of:
    0.009823184 = weight(_text_:a in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009823184 = score(doc=1450,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
    0.012564542 = product of:
      0.025129084 = sum of:
        0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025129084 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

LIS genre studies have suggested that representing the genre of a resource could provide better knowledge representation, organization and retrieval (e.g., Andersen, 2008; Crowston & Kwasnik, 2003). Beghtol (2001) argues that genre analysis could be a useful tool for creating a "framework of analysis for a domain ... [to] structure and interpret texts, events, ideas, decisions, explanations and every other human activity in that domain" (p. 19). Although some studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have found a preponderance of content-related tags (e.g., Munk & Mork, 2007), Lamere's (2008) study of the most frequently applied tags at Last.fm found that tags representing musical genres were favored by taggers. Studies of user-generated genre tags suggest that, unlike traditional indexing, which generally assigns a single genre, users' assignments of genre-related tags provide better representation of the fuzziness at the boundaries of genre categories (Inskip, 2009). In this way, user-generated genre tags are more in line with Bakhtin's (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928/1985) conceptualization of genre as an "aggregate of the means for seeing and conceptualizin reality" (p. 137). For Bakhtin (1986), genres are kinds of practice characterized by their "addressivity" (p. 95): Different genres correspond to different "conceptions of the addressee" and are "determined by that area of human activity and everyday life to which the given utterance is related" (p.95). Miller (1984) argues that genre refers to a "conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that situation arose" (p. 163). Genre is part of a social context that produces, reproduces, modifies and ultimately represents a particular text, but how to reunite genre and situation (or text and context) in systems of knowledge organization has not been addressed. Based on Devitt's (1993) argument suggesting that "our construction of genre is what helps us to construct a situation" (p. 577), one way to represent genre as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" (Miller, 1984, p. 159) would be to employ genre tags generated by a particular group or community of users. This study suggests application of social network analysis to detect communities (Newman, 2006) of genre taggers and argues that communities of genre taggers can better define the nature and constitution of a discourse community while simultaneously shedding light on multifaceted representations of the resource genres.

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

0.008730736 = product of:
  0.02182684 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=2636,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2636, 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=2636)
    0.014120899 = product of:
      0.028241798 = sum of:
        0.028241798 = weight(_text_:information in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028241798 = score(doc=2636,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Structural differences between systems of classification and categorization lead to meaningful differences in the contexts within which information can be apprehended. Examination of systemic properties, forms of interaction and functional capabilities that distinguish classification and categorization can identify the fundamental features that influence the conceptual context of an information system and contribute to its utility as a meaningful information environment.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

Type

a

0.007189882 = product of:
  0.017974705 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3182, 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=3182)
    0.011163551 = product of:
      0.022327103 = sum of:
        0.022327103 = weight(_text_:information in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022327103 = score(doc=3182,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Sheffield, UK, 1998. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

Type

a

0.006540462 = product of:
  0.016351154 = sum of:
    0.010769378 = weight(_text_:a in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010769378 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In information science, classification systems are conventionally viewed as tools for representing knowledge in the universe of ideas, the human mind, or one or more sets of documents. In this view, developing and maintaining relationships and structures in classification schemes must primarily consider two abstract ingredients: i) a set of concepts for one or more domains; and ii) a (set of) unambiguous structure(s) to articulate the relationships that persist between the various concepts that comprise the classificatory structure. We contend that design decisions pertaining to the structure of a classification system consist of far more than simply creating links between the elements in a particular set of concepts. Ultimately, a simplistic tool view of classifications implies that the construction is little more than a technical task in a very narrow sense: that classificatory concepts are viewed as standard representations of what are assumed to be the central and/or important topics in the knowledge domain(s), and that there is i) an unambiguous Platonic ideal or universal consensus that determines how the links will be generated within a classificatory structure; or, conversely, ii) that there are no general structures and relationships available at all, but that only diverse individual knowledge structures exist, which cannot be reconciled into a general organization of knowledge

Type

a

0.0060856803 = product of:
  0.015214201 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=859,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=859,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

The notion of the classification scheme as a transitional element or "boundary object" (Star, 1989) offers an alternative to the more traditional approach that views classification as an organizational structure imposed upon a body of knowledge to facilitate access within a universal and frequently static framework. Recognition of the underlying relationship between user access and the collective knowledge structures that are the basis for knowledge production indicates the dynamic role of classification in supporting coherence and articulation across heterogeneous contexts. To this end, it is argued that the library should be an active participant in the production of knowledge, and that this role can be effected by the development of classificatory structures that can support the needs of a diverse information ecology consisting of a complex web of interacting agents, users, and technologies. Within such an information ecology, a classificatory structure cannot follow a one-size-fits-all paradigm but must evolve in cooperative interaction between librarians and their user groups.

Type

a

0.005822873 = product of:
  0.014557183 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 2253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=2253,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2253, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2253)
    0.007814486 = product of:
      0.015628971 = sum of:
        0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 2253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015628971 = score(doc=2253,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2253, 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=2253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and fixed citation order are two of the mechanisms used to effect collocation in traditional bibliographic classification schemes. Analysis of the rationale underlying application of each of these mechanisms provides a framework for the development of nontraditional approaches to the organization of resources available an the World Wide Web. When supported by an extralinguistic faceted vocabulary of concepts, this framework facilitates construction and implementation of flexible, dynamic indexing systems that can be applied in the design of electronic information systems and the organization of Web-based knowledge resources.

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Type

a

0.0056654564 = product of:
  0.014163641 = sum of:
    0.01021673 = weight(_text_:a in 5173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01021673 = score(doc=5173,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5173, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5173)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 5173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=5173,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5173, 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=5173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Icons are graphic images with functional roles in human-computer interaction. They may be used as conceptual tools to represent the organization of information or as operators affecting an activity such as printing or moving to another document. An icon may represent its referent either as a sign, a purely arbitrary relationship that must be learned by the user; as a pictograph, a visual image of the object represented, or as an ideogram, whre the referent is not a concrete entity but an attribute, a set of attributes, or an abstract concept associated with the referent. The symbolicity of an icon reflects the drgree of representativeness that obtains between an icon and its referent(s). We propose to examine symbolic languages composed of sets of icons and to assess their effectiveness as classificatory structures in terms of: 1) representation of hierarchical structure; 2) level of symbolicity; 3) contexts that promote the capability of icons to represent organization; 4) relationship between an underlying metaphorical framework and iconic representation of the organization; 5) graphic elements of effective symbolic languages; and 6) social or cultural factors related to the effectiveness of icons

Type

a

0.005549766 = product of:
  0.013874415 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 2518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=2518,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2518, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2518)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=2518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper introduces the Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) digital library and describes the pedagogical nature of the resources that make up this library for educators. Because resources in this library are stored in the form of metadata records, the utility of the metadata scheme, its elements and its relationships is central to the ability of the library to address the pedagogical needs of instructors in the work domain of the classroom. The analytic framework provided by cognitive work analysis (CWA) is proposed as an innovative approach for evaluating the effectiveness of the JiTT metadata scheme. CWA is also discussed as an approach to assessing the ability of this extensive networked library to create a common digital environment that fosters cooperation and collaboration among instructors.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

Theme

Information Gateway

Type

a

0.0055105956 = product of:
  0.013776489 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=3290,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3290, 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=3290)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=3290,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3290, 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=3290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2388-2401

Type

a

0.004915534 = product of:
  0.012288835 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=5158,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5158, 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=5158)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5158, 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=5158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Usability of Web sites has become an increasingly important area of research as Web sites proliferate and problems with use are noted. Generally, aspects of Web sites that have been investigated focus on such areas as overall design and navigation. The exploratory study reported on here investigates one specific component of a Web site-the index structure. By employing index usability metrics developed by Liddy and Jörgensen (1993; Jörgensen & Liddy, 1996) and modified to accommodate a hypertext environment, the study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of 20 subjects who used one existing index (the A-Z index on the FedStats Web site at http://www.fedstats.gov) and three experimental variants to complete five researcher-generated tasks. User satisfaction with the indexes was also evaluated. The findings indicate that a hypertext index with multiple access points for each concept, all linked to the same resource, led to greater effectiveness and efficiency of retrieval on almost all measures. Satisfaction measures were more variable. The study offers insight into potential improvements in the design of Web-based indexes and provides preliminary assessment of the validity of the measures employed

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.971-988

Type

a