Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009307554 = product of:
  0.032576438 = sum of:
    0.021717625 = weight(_text_:j in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021717625 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10310292 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03244785 = queryNorm
        0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
    0.010858812 = product of:
      0.021717625 = sum of:
        0.021717625 = weight(_text_:j in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021717625 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10310292 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03244785 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

0.0026342059 = product of:
  0.01843944 = sum of:
    0.01843944 = product of:
      0.07375776 = sum of:
        0.07375776 = weight(_text_:authors in 4383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07375776 = score(doc=4383,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14792371 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03244785 = queryNorm
            0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 4383, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4383)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

To investigate the extent to which online catalogs arrange together, or collocate, records representing particular authors and works, a survey compared the displays resulting from 5 author and 5 work queries in 18 online catalogs. Dependent variables to measure collocation included the number of items irrelevant records were interfiled among relevant records. Searches for worst-case authors and works associated with large retrieval sets, including 'Homer' and 'Paradise lost', revealed the effects of Boolean versus string matching, query type, and catalog size on the collocation of relevant records. Results of the survey showed that string matching collocated relevant records more successfully than Boolean matching, that author records were collocated more successfully than work records, and, surprisingly, that catalog size had only a small effect on collocation

0.0013304749 = product of:
  0.009313324 = sum of:
    0.009313324 = product of:
      0.037253294 = sum of:
        0.037253294 = weight(_text_:authors in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037253294 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14792371 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03244785 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The 2nd objective of the catalogue, adopted internationally in the Paris Principles, requires that cataloguing records for particular authors and particular works be easily identified (IFLA 1991). Analysis of the requirements of the 2nd objective of the catalogue shows that it has 2 components: a retrieval component; and a display component; and that it may be interpreted broadly to include related works and works about a work or author. Investigates 2 schemes for their contributions to the creation of online catalogue displays that meet 2nd objective requirements. Analyzes the catalogue filing rule scheme to show that author and work displays in card catalogues have been composed of many groups or classes of materials that may also be used to create organized displays in online catalogues. The groups used in the filing rule scheme are based on relationships among items. Proposes a scheme based on Tillet's bibliographic relationship taxonomy to discover additional types of relationships that may be used to group record in online catalogue displays leading to a new scheme for the creation of organized display in online catalogues. Incorporates elements from both the filing rule scheme and the bibliographic relationship taxonomy to create displays that meet the requirements of the 2nd objective more fully than either scheme does alone