Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 6072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=6072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6072)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 5353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=5353,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5353, 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=5353)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The impetus for a large-scale study on subject heading understanding was a recommendation of the Library of Congress (LC) Subject Subdivisions Conference that suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging. This paper focuses on unexpected large-scale study findings about multiple meanings for subdivided subject headings and the effects that changes of meaning for different orders of subdivisions had on the meanings that end users and librarians provided to subdivided subject headings. Findings about changes of meaning in subdivided subject headings did not dissuade the authors regarding their recommendation that the library community adopt a standard order of subdivisions. The authors also give suggestions for additional studies of subject heading understanding that build on this one.

Type

a

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=543,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 543, 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=543)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper recognizes the limitations of the existing file of Library of Congress (LC) subject authority records for subject heading assignment and validation. it makes recommendations for a new file of machine readable authority records for period subdivisions and for enhancements to the existings file of subject authority records. Recommended changes would enable online systems to assist in subject heading formulations and verify, with limited assistance by human intermediaries, the individual components of subdivided headings. The recommendations are timely in view of changes to the forms of period subdivisions that the Library of Congress is studying to facilitate the display of period subdivisions in chronological order. The availability of machine-readable authority records for most period subdivisions would enable online systems to automatically make changes to the forms of period subdivisions in bibliographic records using cross references for previously-used forms in the autority records for the new forms. The paper also discusses issues arising from an enhancement of the existing controlled system of period subdivision. A study of subdivided subject headings in a large bibliographic database forms the basis of the recommendations

Type

a

0.0015787644 = product of:
  0.007893822 = sum of:
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 3658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=3658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of librarianship and information science. 28(1996) no.1, S.60-61 (C. Oppenheim)

0.001541188 = product of:
  0.00770594 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 2101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=2101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2101)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A prototype expert system for the computer science section (QA75 to QA76.95) of Library of Congress Classification was built using the Mahogany Professional expert system shell. The prototype demonstrates an expert systes application in which the system is enlisted as an intelligent job aid to assist users during the actual performance of shelflisting

Type

a

0.0014156717 = product of:
  0.007078358 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=1163,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Describes a study to investigate end user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference. The impetus for this study was a charge by the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALA to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. Questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the 'current' form and in the form proposed were distributed to users and professional cataloguers who were asked for the meaning of individual headings. The end users' responses to cataloguers' responses were compared to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end user interpretations demonstrated that they interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as cataloguers about 40% of the time for 'current' forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for 'proposed' forms of subject headings. Concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end user understanding of subdivided subject headinbgs

Type

a

0.0014156717 = product of:
  0.007078358 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=5553,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Search trees are sets of paths with branches or choices that enable systems to carry out the most sensible search approaches at each stage of searches. Report results of a research project, undertaken at Michigan University, which aimed to identify characteristics of the most difficult user queries and recommend enhancements to the new subject searching design to enable it to produce useful retrievals in response to the wide variety of queries users pose to online catalogues. Online catalogues governed by search trees are more effective than the users themselves in selecting subject searching approaches and the enhanced search trees described and tested enlist subject searching approaches that are not typical of the functionality of operational online catalogues. Concludes that design and development is required to upgrade existing online catalogues with search trees and new subject searching functionality to be successful in responding with useful retrievals to the most difficult user queries

Type

a

0.0013622305 = product of:
  0.0068111527 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=5973,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 separate but related projects to study the influence of spelling errors (misspellings), made by searchers, on the subject searching of online catalogues and to suggest ways of improving error detection systems to handle the errors that they detect. This involved the categorization of user queries for subjects that were extracted from the online catalogue transaction logs of 4 USA university libraries. The research questions considered: the prevalence of misspellings in user queries for subjects; and how users respond to online catalogues that detect possible spelling errors in their subject queries. Less than 6% of user queries that match the catalogue's controlled and free text terms were found to contain spelling errors. While the majority of users corrected misspelled query words, a sizable proportion made an action that was even more detrimental than the original misspelling. Concludes with 3 recommended improvements: online catalogues should be equipped with search trees to place the burden of selecting a subject the system instead of the user; systems should be equipped with automatic spelling checking routines that inform users of possibly misspelled words; and online catalogues should be enhanced with tools and techniques to distinguish between queries that fail due to misspellings and correction failures. Cautions that spelling is not a serious problem but can seriously hinder the most routine subject search

Type

a

0.0013396261 = product of:
  0.0066981306 = sum of:
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=386,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using subject headings for Online Retrieval is an indispensable tool for online system desingners who are developing new systems or refining exicting ones. The book describes subject analysis and subject searching in online catalogs, including the limitations of retrieval, and demonstrates how such limitations can be overcome through system design and programming. The book describes the Library of Congress Subject headings system and system characteristics, shows how information is stored in machine readable files, and offers examples of and recommendations for successful methods. Tables are included to support these recommendations, and diagrams, graphs, and bar charts are used to provide results of data analyses.

Footnote

Rez. in: Information processing and management 31(1995) no.3, S.450-451 (R.R. Larson); Library resources and technical services 41(1997) no.1, S.60-67 (B.H. Weinberg)

8.173384E-4 = product of:
  0.004086692 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 5164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=5164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5164)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a