Search

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley's (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs' (1993) theory about scientific change. Design/methodology/approach: The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies. Findings: The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies. Originality/value: The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley's (1984) theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how typical users of YouTube judge the relevance of videos in leisure contexts; what are the reasons users give when judging video material as relevant or not relevant?Design/methodology/approach A naturalistic diary was performed in which 30 participants completed diaries providing details on their video relevance criteria. The analysis revealed 28 relevance criteria grouped into eight categories.Findings In total, 28 relevance criteria were identified through the analyses of the diaries’ content and they were grouped into eight categories. The findings revealed that criteria related to the content of the video are the most dominant group of criteria with topicality being the most dominant criterion. There is a considerable overlap between leisure relevance criteria and previous relevance criteria studies, but the importance of these criteria varies among different contexts. New criteria, e.g. habit emerged from the data which tend to be more related to leisure contexts.Research limitations/implications The decision to follow a naturalistic approach reduced the level of control on the study. A further limitation can be found in the participants’ sample used in this study, all the participants of the main study were university or college students.Practical implications This study attempted to enrich the current literature by investigating users’ video relevance criteria in leisure contexts. This investigation might have implications on the design of video search systems.Originality/value Previous relevance criteria studies focussed on work contexts and the information judged was mainly in text format. This paper outlines new insights by investigating video relevance criteria in leisure context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose ? To provide an integrated perspective to similarities and differences between approaches to automated classification in different research communities (machine learning, information retrieval and library science), and point to problems with the approaches and automated classification as such. Design/methodology/approach ? A range of works dealing with automated classification of full-text web documents are discussed. Explorations of individual approaches are given in the following sections: special features (description, differences, evaluation), application and characteristics of web pages. Findings ? Provides major similarities and differences between the three approaches: document pre-processing and utilization of web-specific document characteristics is common to all the approaches; major differences are in applied algorithms, employment or not of the vector space model and of controlled vocabularies. Problems of automated classification are recognized. Research limitations/implications ? The paper does not attempt to provide an exhaustive bibliography of related resources. Practical implications ? As an integrated overview of approaches from different research communities with application examples, it is very useful for students in library and information science and computer science, as well as for practitioners. Researchers from one community have the information on how similar tasks are conducted in different communities. Originality/value ? To the author's knowledge, no review paper on automated text classification attempted to discuss more than one community's approach from an integrated perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]