Langkau ke kandunganScholarGate
PerpustakaanPerpustakaan sayaMejaReview StudioPembantu
Log masuk
Literary Warrant Analysis/Bukti
Rekod bukti kaedah

Literary Warrant Analysis

Literary warrant analysis is the method of justifying the classes and terms of a knowledge-organization system by reference to the actual content of a domain's published literature, rather than to abstract logic or a designer's intuition. The principle, traceable to E. Wyndham Hulme's 1911 idea that classification should be warranted by the books that exist, was given an empirical, corpus-based operationalization by Clare Beghtol in her study of fiction studies, where she used subject descriptors in a bibliographic database to quantify how strongly the domain's literature supported particular concepts and where the field reached consensus. Within Hjørland and Albrechtsen's domain-analysis programme, literary warrant is the empirical anchor that ties a classification or thesaurus to the discourse it serves. The analysis assembles a representative corpus, extracts and counts concepts, measures their warrant, gauges consensus, and lets that evidence determine what the system should contain and how finely it should distinguish.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Rekod sumber

Petikan disalin secara verbatim daripada rekod sumber kaedah. Tiada pengesahan peringkat tuntutan disimpulkan daripadanya.

Literary Warrant Analysis (Grounding Classes and Terms in Published Literature)
Rekod kaedah taksonomik · process-pipeline / library-information-science
  • Beghtol, C. (1995). Domain analysis, literary warrant, and consensus: The case of fiction studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(1), 30-44. · DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199501)46:1<30::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-F
  • Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425. · DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199507)46:6<400::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Y
Buka kaedah penuh

Tuntutan yang dikurasi

Tuntutan disimpan dalam lejar bukti, setiap satu dengan penilaiannya sendiri.

Tiada tuntutan terkurasi lagi

Pandangan ini tidak mencipta penilaian tuntutan apabila lejar tiada.

Kaedah berkaitan

Dijana daripada graf kaedah dan ditunjukkan sebagai perhubungan yang dicadangkan mesin — tiada tuntutan bukti disimpulkan.

Taxonomic bucketDomain Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyFacet Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyThesaurus Constructionmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Status bukti

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sumber

2 petikan direkodkan, disalin daripada rekod sumber kaedah.

Tindakan

Buka halaman kaedah
ScholarGate

Perpustakaan rujukan berteraskan kandungan untuk kaedah penyelidikan — apakah setiap kaedah, bagaimana ia berfungsi, dan dari mana asalnya.

Data terbuka (CC-BY)

Terokai

  • Perpustakaan
  • Cari kaedah…
  • Layari mengikut bidang
  • Bidang
  • Perjalanan
  • Bandingkan
  • Kaedah yang mana?

Rujukan

  • Bidang
  • Atlas
  • Glosari
  • Metodologi
  • Falsafah

Ruang kerja

  • Perpustakaan saya
  • Meja
  • Sembang

Syarikat

  • Perihal
  • Harga
  • Hubungi
  • Cadangkan kaedah

Entri disusun daripada sumber yang diterbitkan untuk rujukan. Pengesahan ketepatan dan kesesuaian sebarang maklumat untuk kegunaan anda sendiri kekal menjadi tanggungjawab anda.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Perpustakaan rujukan kaedah penyelidikan
  • Privasi
  • Kuki
Terma
  • Padam akaun