Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034227468 = product of:
  0.13690987 = sum of:
    0.13690987 = weight(_text_:term in 3921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13690987 = score(doc=3921,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.62504494 = fieldWeight in 3921, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3921)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.033876404 = product of:
  0.13550562 = sum of:
    0.13550562 = weight(_text_:term in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13550562 = score(doc=376,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.618634 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.031474918 = product of:
  0.12589967 = sum of:
    0.12589967 = weight(_text_:frequency in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12589967 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.45543438 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.011130357 = product of:
  0.04452143 = sum of:
    0.04452143 = product of:
      0.08904286 = sum of:
        0.08904286 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08904286 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.006360204 = product of:
  0.025440816 = sum of:
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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