Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047572 = product of:
  0.095144 = sum of:
    0.095144 = sum of:
      0.064316295 = weight(_text_:subject in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064316295 = score(doc=1182,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contemporary information systems, both the private and the commercially available ones, have often been blamed for their low effectiveness in terms of precision and recall, especially when they have reached considerable size with respect to file volume and use frequency (see, for example, Belkin, 1980; Blair, 1996, p.19; Desai, 1997; Drabenstott, 1996; Knorz, 1998). Saracevic (1989), after having reviewed the contemporary design of online subject access, calls "for radically different design principles and implementation" (p. 107). Van Rijsbergen (1990) writes: "The keywords approach with statistical techniques has reached its theoretical limit and further attempts for improvement are considered a waste of time" (p. 111). Lancaster (1992) deplores that very little really significant literature an subject indexing has been published in the last thirty or so years. In her preface to the Proceedings of the Sixth International Study Conference an Classification Research in 1997, Mcllwaine (1997) writes, "many were surprised to find that the problems with which they wrestle today are not greatly different from those that have been occupying the minds of specialists in the field for over a generation, and probably a great deal longer" (p. v).

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.025524741 = product of:
  0.051049482 = sum of:
    0.051049482 = product of:
      0.102098964 = sum of:
        0.102098964 = weight(_text_:subject in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102098964 = score(doc=6920,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.6272999 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The contents of scientific and technical handbooks often needs fast, reliable and precise subject access, even if the searcher is not familiar with the terminology of the book and has not read it beforehand. This requires careful and expert subject indexing in a highly specific indexing vocabulary, as well as the presentation of the resulting index in a lucid, conceptually transparent manner in print and on disk. Index users, when looking up a general subject heading, often ignore the necessity of looking up the appertaining hierarchically subordinate, more specific subject headings, too. They are either not made aware of these subject headings or their use is felt to be too cumbersome. A classifies approach to computerized subject indexing is described which resembles Ranganathan's Classified Catalogue. Through a variety of peculiarities it leads the searcher rapidly and easily to all subject headings related to a primarily chosen one, and to the postings under all these headings

0.019294888 = product of:
  0.038589776 = sum of:
    0.038589776 = product of:
      0.07717955 = sum of:
        0.07717955 = weight(_text_:subject in 1008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07717955 = score(doc=1008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 1008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.016079074 = product of:
  0.032158148 = sum of:
    0.032158148 = product of:
      0.064316295 = sum of:
        0.064316295 = weight(_text_:subject in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064316295 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Subject indexing: principles and practices in the 90's. Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting Held in Lisbon, Portugal, 17-18 August 1993, and sponsored by the IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing and the Instituto da Biblioteca Nacional e do Livro, Lisbon, Portugal. Ed.: R.P. Holley et al

0.015413855 = product of:
  0.03082771 = sum of:
    0.03082771 = product of:
      0.06165542 = sum of:
        0.06165542 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06165542 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 8.2022 19:22:57

0.011255352 = product of:
  0.022510704 = sum of:
    0.022510704 = product of:
      0.045021407 = sum of:
        0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 8756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045021407 = score(doc=8756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 8756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009095698 = product of:
  0.018191395 = sum of:
    0.018191395 = product of:
      0.03638279 = sum of:
        0.03638279 = weight(_text_:subject in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03638279 = score(doc=3641,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al