Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Literary Warrant Analysis/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

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

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Literary Warrant Analysis (Grounding Classes and Terms in Published Literature)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · 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
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

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.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

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

Kilder

2 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto