Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Jacob, E.K."
  1. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The structure of context : implications of structure for the creation of context in information systems (2004) 0.10
    0.09875835 = product of:
      0.16459724 = sum of:
        0.11181675 = weight(_text_:context in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11181675 = score(doc=2636,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.6345174 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
        0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03727935 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
        0.015501143 = product of:
          0.04650343 = sum of:
            0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04650343 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2636, 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=2636)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    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.
    Date
    29. 8.2004 9:56:28
  2. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The everyday world of work : two approaches to the investigation of classification in context (2001) 0.03
    0.032144334 = product of:
      0.08036084 = sum of:
        0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057061244 = score(doc=4494,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
        0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023299592 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    One major aspect of T.D. Wilson's research has been his insistence on situating the investigation of information behaviour within the context of its occurrence - within the everyday world of work. The significance of this approach is reviewed in light of the notion of embodied cognition that characterises the evolving theoretical episteme in cognitive science research. Embodied cognition employs complex external props such as stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings to reduce the cognitive burden on the individual and to augment human problem-solving activities. The cognitive function of the classification scheme is described as exemplifying both stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings. Two different but complementary approaches to the investigation of situated cognition are presented: cognition-as-scaffolding and cognition-as-infrastructure. Classification-as-scaffolding views the classification scheme as a knowledge storage device supporting and promoting cognitive economy. Classification-as-infrastructure views the classification system as a social convention that, when integrated with technological structures and organisational practices, supports knowledge management work. Both approaches are shown to build upon and extend Wilson's contention that research is most productive when it attends to the social and organisational contexts of cognitive activity by focusing on the everyday world of work.
  3. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: User-generated genre tags through the lens of genre theories (2014) 0.03
    0.02543569 = product of:
      0.06358922 = sum of:
        0.055908374 = weight(_text_:context in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055908374 = score(doc=1450,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.3172587 = fieldWeight in 1450, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1450)
        0.0076808496 = product of:
          0.023042548 = sum of:
            0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023042548 = score(doc=1450,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      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
  4. Hert, C.A.; Jacob, E.K.; Dawson, P.: ¬A usability assessment of online indexing structures in the networked environment (2000) 0.02
    0.020057717 = product of:
      0.100288585 = sum of:
        0.100288585 = weight(_text_:index in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100288585 = score(doc=5158,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5397815 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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
  5. Wildemuth, B.M.; Jacob, E.K.; Fullington, A.;; Bliek, R. de; Friedman, C.P.: ¬A detailed analysis of end-user search behaviours (1991) 0.01
    0.0065901205 = product of:
      0.032950602 = sum of:
        0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032950602 = score(doc=2423,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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
  6. Krutulis, J.D.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬A theoretical model for the study of emergent structure in adaptive information networks (1995) 0.01
    0.006523886 = product of:
      0.03261943 = sum of:
        0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03261943 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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
  7. Jacob, E.K.: Classification and categorization : a difference that makes a difference (2004) 0.01
    0.006523886 = product of:
      0.03261943 = sum of:
        0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03261943 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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.
  8. Albrechtsen, H.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬The role of classificatory structures as boundary objects in information ecologies (1998) 0.00
    0.0046599186 = product of:
      0.023299592 = sum of:
        0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023299592 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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
  9. Arave, G.; Jacob, E.K.: Evaluating semantic interoperability across ontologies (2016) 0.00
    0.0031002287 = product of:
      0.015501143 = sum of:
        0.015501143 = product of:
          0.04650343 = sum of:
            0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 4924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04650343 = score(doc=4924,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4924, 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=4924)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  10. Hajibayova, L.; Jacob, E.K.: Investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies : a case of wild or tamed categorization? (2014) 0.00
    0.0027155904 = product of:
      0.013577952 = sum of:
        0.013577952 = product of:
          0.040733855 = sum of:
            0.040733855 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040733855 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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
  11. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The legacy of pragmatism : implications for knowledge organization in a pluralistic universe (2000) 0.00
    0.0026882975 = product of:
      0.013441487 = sum of:
        0.013441487 = product of:
          0.04032446 = sum of:
            0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04032446 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Pages
    S.16-22
  12. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.00
    0.0023042548 = product of:
      0.011521274 = sum of:
        0.011521274 = product of:
          0.03456382 = sum of:
            0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03456382 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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)
  13. Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011) 0.00
    0.0023042548 = product of:
      0.011521274 = sum of:
        0.011521274 = product of:
          0.03456382 = sum of:
            0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03456382 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04251826 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22