Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Armstrong, C.J."
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, PICS and quality (1997) 0.00 
    0.0036236679 = product of:
  0.043484014 = sum of:
    0.043484014 = weight(_text_:internet in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043484014 = score(doc=230,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.45196757 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    Discusses the application of the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) methodology, developed in response to the US Communications Decency Act, 1996 (to enable indecent sites to be circumnavigated), as a means of labelling databases, particularly those incorporating metadata. Describes the potential for PICS in the labelling and describing of databases available via the Internet and WWW. Notes the place of PICS in relation to the activities and recommendations of the Centre for Information Quality Management
    Theme
    Internet
  2. Wheatley, A.; Armstrong, C.J.: Metadata, recall, and abstracts : can abstracts ever be reliable indicators of document value? (1997) 0.00 
    0.0031381883 = product of:
  0.03765826 = sum of:
    0.03765826 = weight(_text_:internet in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03765826 = score(doc=824,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.3914154 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    Abstracts from 7 Internet subject trees (Euroferret, Excite, Infoseek, Lycos Top 5%, Magellan, WebCrawler, Yahoo!), 5 Internet subject gateways (ADAM, EEVL, NetFirst, OMNI, SOSIG), and 3 online databases (ERIC, ISI, LISA) were examined for their subject content, treatment of various enriching features, physical properties such as overall length, anf their readability. Considerable differences were measured, and consistent similarities among abstracts from each type of source were demonstrated. Internet subject tree abstracts were generally the shortest, and online database abstracts the longest. Subject tree and online database abstracts were the most informative, but the level of coverage of document features such as tables, bibliographies, and geographical constraints were disappointingly poor. On balance, the Internet gateways appeared to be providing the most satisfactory abstracts. The authors discuss the continuing role in networked information retrieval of abstracts and their functional analoques such as metadata
  3. Armstrong, C.J.; Wheatley, A.: Writing abstracts for online databases : results of database producers' guidelines (1998) 0.00 
    0.0025888733 = product of:
  0.03106648 = sum of:
    0.03106648 = weight(_text_:internet in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03106648 = score(doc=3295,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.32290122 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content
  4. Armstrong, C.J.: Do we really care about quality? (1995) 0.00 
    0.0018306099 = product of:
  0.021967318 = sum of:
    0.021967318 = weight(_text_:internet in 3878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021967318 = score(doc=3878,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 3878, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3878)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    Abstract
    With the increased use of local area networks, CD-ROMs and the Internet, an enormous amount of traditional material is becoming available. Quality issues are therefore becoming even more vital. Describes a methodology being evaluated by The Centre for Information Quality (CIQM) whereby databases can be quantitatively labelled by their producers, so that users can judge how much reliance can be place on them. At the same time, each label bacomes a database specific standard to which its information provider must adhere. This may be a route to responsible information supply

Themes