Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
rvk_ss%3a%2200 75400 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f sacherschlie%c3%9fung in bibliotheken %2f schlagwortregeln%2c schlagwortverzeichnis%22 2
rvk_ss%3a%2200 75000 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f sacherschlie%c3%9fung in bibliotheken %2f schlagwortregeln%2c schlagwortverzeichnis%22 2
rvk_ss%3a%2200 75400 allgemeinen %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f sacherschlie%c3%9fung in bibliotheken %2f schlagwortregeln%2c schlagwortverzeichnis%22 2
rvk_ss%3a%2200 75400 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f sacherschlie%c3%9fung in bibliotheken %2f schlagwortregeln%2c sschlagwortverzeichnis%22 2
rvk_ss%3a%2223 75400 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f sacherschlie%c3%9fung in bibliotheken %2f schlagwortregeln%2c schlagwortverzeichnis%22 2

Chu, C.M.; Ajiferuke, I.: Quality of indexing in library and information science databases (1989) 0.00
```
4.803786E-4 = product of:
  0.008166436 = sum of:
    0.008166436 = weight(_text_:in in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008166436 = score(doc=771,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 771, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=771)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
```
Abstract

This study compares the quality of indexing in library and information science databases (Library Literature (LL), Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), and Information Science Abstracts (ISA)). An alternative method to traditional retrieval effectiveness tests, suggested by White and Griffith in their paper 'Quality of indexing in online databases' is adopted to measure the quality of the controlled vocabulary of each database ... Our analysis shows that LISA has the best quality of indexing out of the three databases
Chu, C.M.; O'Brien, A.: Subject analysis : the critical first stage in indexing (1993) 0.00
```
4.0280976E-4 = product of:
  0.0068477658 = sum of:
    0.0068477658 = weight(_text_:in in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068477658 = score(doc=6472,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
```
Abstract

Studies of indexing neglect the first stage of the process, that is, subject analysis. In this study, novice indexers were asked to analyse three short, popular journal articles; to express the general subject as well as the primary and secondary topics in natural laguage statements; to state what influenced the analysis and to comment on the ease or difficulty of this process. The factors which influenced the process were: the subject discipline concerned, factual vs. subjective nature of the text, complexity of the subject, clarity of text, possible support offered by bibliographic apparatus such as title, etc. The findings showed that with the social science and science texts, the general subject could be determined with ease, while this was more difficult with the humanities text. Clear evidence emerged of the importance of bibliographical apparatus in defining the general subject. There was varying difficulty in determining the primary and secondarx topics

Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years