Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=6472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Studies of indexing neglect the first stage of the process, that is, subject analysis. In this study, novice indexers were asked to analyse three short, popular journal articles; to express the general subject as well as the primary and secondary topics in natural laguage statements; to state what influenced the analysis and to comment on the ease or difficulty of this process. The factors which influenced the process were: the subject discipline concerned, factual vs. subjective nature of the text, complexity of the subject, clarity of text, possible support offered by bibliographic apparatus such as title, etc. The findings showed that with the social science and science texts, the general subject could be determined with ease, while this was more difficult with the humanities text. Clear evidence emerged of the importance of bibliographical apparatus in defining the general subject. There was varying difficulty in determining the primary and secondarx topics

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3879)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study which applied a typological procedure, developed by Lazairsfeld from the social sciences, to a set of qualitative data on fiction reading habits for the purpose of forming a practical typology of fiction borrowers. The data was collected from a sample of 300 readers in 2 medium sized UK public libraries over a 2 month period. The procedure, using an inductive research approach, first mapped readers along 6 dimensions of reading habits which emerged from the data frequencies of borrowing, the numbers of authors currently read, the literary/recreational orientation of reading, searching approaches usually applied, sureness (confidence) in book selection and then proceeded to reduce the number of combinations formed by these dimensions, based on their relationships. A typology of 7 types of fiction borrowers was devised: readers of particularism; readers of frequent literary pluralism; readers of infrequent literary pluralism; readers of frequent recreational pluralism; readers of infrequent recreational pluralism; readers of frequent universalism; and readers of infrequent universalism

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3628, 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=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This paper is a pre-print version presented at the ISKO UK 2009 conference, 22-23 June, prior to peer review and editing. For published proceedings see special issue of Aslib Proceedings journal.