Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Nielsen, M.L."
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction : key issues and selected readings (2004) 0.01 
    0.011492259 = product of:
  0.028730646 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=5006,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this selected bibliography is to introduce issues and problems in relation to thesaurus construction and to present a set of readings that may be used in practical thesaurus design. The concept of thesaurus is discussed, the purpose of the thesaurus and how the concept has evolved over the years according to new IR technologies. Different approaches to thesaurus construction are introduced, and readings dealing with specific problems and developments in the collection, formation and organisation of thesaurus concepts and terms are presented. Primarily manual construction methods are discussed, but the bibliography also refers to research about techniques for automatic thesaurus construction.
    Date
    18. 5.2006 20:06:22
    Type
    a
  2. Nielsen, M.L.: ¬A framework for work task based thesaurus design (2001) 0.01 
    0.0069366493 = product of:
  0.017341623 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=4477,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=4477,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Design and construction of indexing languages require thorough knowledge and understanding of the information environment. This empirical study investigated a mixed set of methods (group interviews, recollection of information needs and word association tests to collect data; content analysis and discourse analysis to analyse data) to evaluate whether these methods collected the data needed for work domain oriented thesaurus design. The findings showed that the study methods together provided the domain knowledge needed to define the role of the thesaurus and design its content and structure. The study was carried out from a person-insituation perspective. The findings reflected the information environment and made it possible to develop a thesaurus according to the characteristics of the work domain. It seemed more difficult to capture the needs of the individual user and adapt the thesaurus to individual characteristics.
    Type
    a
  3. Nielsen, M.L.; Eslau, A.G.; Lundbeck, H.: Corporate thesauri - how to ensure integration of knowledge and reflections of diversity (2003) 0.01 
    0.0051638708 = product of:
  0.012909677 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=2732,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2732, 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=2732)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=2732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper evaluates and compares three thesaurus construction methodologies: literary scanning, word association tests, and involvement of subject expert groups. The evaluation concentrates an exploring advantages in relation to the sub-processes: collection, formation and structuring of concepts and terms. Quantitative as well as qualitative analyses have been carried out. The analysis Shows that the methods are complementary each providing distinct conceptual information from respectively a domain-oriented and a scientific viewpoint. The combination of methods provides a thesaurus, at the same time, mapping authoritative language and reflecting the diversity of language.
    Type
    a
  4. Tudhope, D.; Nielsen, M.L.: Introduction to knowledge organization systems and services (2006) 0.01 
    0.005084014 = product of:
  0.012710035 = sum of:
    0.0048162127 = weight(_text_:a in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048162127 = score(doc=5913,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5913, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5913)
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=5913,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5913, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In a very real sense, this special issue on Knowledge Organization Systems and Services is concerned with new applications, new contexts and new twists of old themes and problems. We are concerned with diverse attempts to apply the outcomes of much work over the years in artificial subject languages and their intellectual structures to facilitate access to digital information in various settings. This issue has its origins in NKOS workshops, held over the last two years in Bath, Vienna, Madrid and Denver, although the majority of contributions resulted from an open call for papers, disseminated in October 2005. NKOS (http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/) is an informal network whose general aim is to enable knowledge organization systems (KOS) to act as networked information services (both machine-to-machine and human facing), supporting the description and retrieval of information resources on the Internet. Since 1997, there has been an NKOS workshop each year, at either the JCDL or ECDL conference (2005 saw an NKOS workshop at both conferences and also at Dublin Core). Previous NKOS-related special issues have appeared in the online Journal of Digital Information in 2001 and 2004 (Hill and Koch 2001, Tudhope and Koch 2004).
    Type
    a
  5. Golub, K.; Moon, J.; Nielsen, M.L.; Tudhope, D.: EnTag: Enhanced Tagging for Discovery (2008) 0.00 
    0.0013485396 = product of:
  0.0067426977 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=2294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2294, 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=2294)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.

Authors

Types

Themes