-
Diodato, V.: Duplicate entries versus see cross references in back-of-the book indexes (1994)
0.03
0.03211999 = product of:
0.06423998 = sum of:
0.06423998 = sum of:
0.014319601 = weight(_text_:a in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014319601 = score(doc=1427,freq=14.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04992038 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings
- Type
- a
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.02
0.021840166 = product of:
0.043680333 = sum of:
0.043680333 = product of:
0.087360665 = sum of:
0.087360665 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087360665 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Diodato, V.: Cross-references in back-of-book indexes (1991)
0.00
0.00270615 = product of:
0.0054123 = sum of:
0.0054123 = product of:
0.0108246 = sum of:
0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 7765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0108246 = score(doc=7765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 7765, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7765)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Henry, G.; Diodato, V.: ¬The rates of assignment of thesaurus terms in the ERIC information retrieval system : an analysis of hierarchies and levels (1991)
0.00
0.0023678814 = product of:
0.0047357627 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = product of:
0.009471525 = sum of:
0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009471525 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Diodato, V.; Henry, G.: ¬The rates of assignment of narrower terms in the Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors (1993)
0.00
0.0020506454 = product of:
0.004101291 = sum of:
0.004101291 = product of:
0.008202582 = sum of:
0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008202582 = score(doc=3921,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3921, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3921)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Is there a link between the use of an indexing term and its physical similarity to its narrower terms? This analysis covered 1.296 terms, each with at least one narrower term in the ERIC thesaurus. It measured the postings per document of the entry terms and their narrower terms. There was almost no correlation between how often a term is assigned and how many similar looking narrower terms it has. Nevertheless, there were some sets of narrower terms that had much higher postings per document rates than their entry terms. Many of these narrower terms were much newer to the thesaurus than were their entry terms
- Type
- a
-
Diodato, V.: Tables of contents and book indexes : how well do they match readers' descriptions of books? (1986)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=376,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The author collected information about tables of content and index terms in 125 books borrowed by patrons in a medium-sized academic library. To learn how useful the term would be as subject terms in a library catalog, he determined which of these terms were the same as the words used by the patrons to describe the books. For 72,4% of the books assigned LCSH, the patron's term matched the LCheading. The patron's term matched the table of contents term for (1,3% of the books with tables of contents. If the catalog had included terms from the tables of contents and the indexes in addition to the LCSH, the success rate would have been 97,3%. One problem in using terms from books in a library catalog is that many books lack indexes and/or tables of context
- Type
- a
-
Diodato, V.: Eponyms and citations in the literature of psychology and mathematics (1984)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=2612,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2612, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2612)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- An eponym is an expression that consists of an individual's name plus a wor denoting some idea or thing associated with that person. The literatures of psychology and mathematics discuss the use of eponyms, and the presence of eponyms probably affects searches for information in those fields. In a study of 4.506 articles published in 1982, the author found that 4,4 percent of psychology article titles and 33,4 percent of methmatics article titles contained at least one eponym each. In psychology, 74 of 95 eponyms occured in articles that listed references to other works authored by the respective individuals associated with the eponyms. In mathematics, 688 of 1.105 eponyms occured in articles that cited other works having the respective names of the eponymous individuals in their titles. A comparison showed that 16,8 percent of psychology article eponyms and 39,9 percent of mathematics article eponyms exactly matched entries in at least one of their field's vocabulary lists
- Type
- a
-
Ma, Y.; Diodato, V.: Icons as visual form of knowledge representation on the World Wide Web : a semiotic analysis (1999)
0.00
0.0018909799 = product of:
0.0037819599 = sum of:
0.0037819599 = product of:
0.0075639198 = sum of:
0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 6674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075639198 = score(doc=6674,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 6674, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6674)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article compares the indexing structure of icons with principles used for traditional indexing. The investigators apply fourteen traditional indexing principles to study and demonstrate whether traditional principles of indexing are applicable for icon analysis. One of the fourteen indexing principles is first chosen for this analysis. A sample of fifteen library homepages is drawn from the total population of the United States library homepages. The investigators examine the structure of the selected homepages and non-icon information on the homepages. They examine icons as a visual form of knowledge representation (the structure and features of the icons) to determine how icons are representative of the information to which they are linked. The investigators assess how the icons on each library homepage satisfy the indexing principle chosen for the study. The article also provides an analysis of meanings of these icons. The investigators use semiotics theory to study the icons. The icons on the homepages of the WWW carry meaning dependent on the syntax of their use. They also carry paradigmatic meanings derived from other systems or domains. Codes and syntax are culturally constructed, which shape the meaning of messages conveyed in the icons. This study demonstrates whether traditional indexing principles are applicable for icons analysis in the WWW environment. It is hoped that the study will help designers of WWW homepages employ icon features that communicate effectively to their users and suggest using icons as a visual form for knowledge representation on the WWW
- Type
- a
-
Diodato, V.; Gandt, G.: Back of book indexes and the characteristics of author and nonauthor indexing : report of an exploratory study (1991)
0.00
0.001674345 = product of:
0.00334869 = sum of:
0.00334869 = product of:
0.00669738 = sum of:
0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00669738 = score(doc=1114,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study examined the content of back of book indexes produced by 37 authors and 27 nonauthors. The purpose was to see if differences between the two groups of indexers could be discerned by counting the occurrence of characteristics in their indexes. The nonauthors, many or all of whom were probably professional indexers, provided significantly more index pages, modified headings, and modifiers than did the author indexers. The two groups were almost identical in their frequency of cross reference use. The simple counting technique is a feasible method. It should be applied to othe populations of back of book indexes to determine how generalizable are the author/nonauthor differences seen here
- Type
- a
-
Diodato, V.: User preferences for features in back of the book indexes (1994)
0.00
0.001674345 = product of:
0.00334869 = sum of:
0.00334869 = product of:
0.00669738 = sum of:
0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 7762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00669738 = score(doc=7762,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 7762, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7762)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A survey of 255 librarians and college professors obtained their opinions of 3 elements of back of book indexes. Both groups overwhelmingly preferred line-by-line subheadings to the run-on arrangement, even though many books use the latter format. Almost all librarians preferred word-by-word alphabetization to the letter-by-letter method, but only about two thirds of the professors shared this preference. Strongest disagreement between the two groups occured when most of the librarians preferred see references to duplicate entries, while most professors selected duplicate entires instead of see references. Indexers and developers of indexing standards should consider the preferences of index users
- Type
- a
