-
Spiteri, L.F.: Library and information science vs business : a comparison of approaches to abstracting (1997)
0.01
0.0073902505 = product of:
0.018475626 = sum of:
0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010661141 = score(doc=3699,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
0.007814486 = product of:
0.015628971 = sum of:
0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015628971 = score(doc=3699,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The library and information science (LIS) literature on abstracting makes little mention about abstracting conducted in the corporate / business environment, whereas the business literature suggests that abstarcting is a very important component of business writing. Examines a variety of publications from LIS and business in order to compare and contrast their approaches to the following aspects of abstracting: definitions of abstracts; types of abstracts; purpose of abstracts; and writing of abstracts. Summarises the results of the examination which revealed a number of similarities, differences, and inadequacies in the ways in which both fields approach abstracting. Concludes that both fields need to develop more detailed guidelines concerning the cognitive process of abstracting and suggests improvements to the training af absractors based on these findings
- Type
- a
-
Spiteri, L.F.: ¬The essential elements of faceted thesauri (1999)
0.01
0.0066833766 = product of:
0.016708441 = sum of:
0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0100103095 = score(doc=5362,freq=12.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5362, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5362)
0.0066981306 = product of:
0.013396261 = sum of:
0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013396261 = score(doc=5362,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5362, 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=5362)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The goal of this study is to evaluate, compare, and contrast how facet analysis is used to construct the systematic or faceted displays of a selection of information retrieval thesauri. More specifically, the study seeks to examine which principles of facet analysis are used in the thesauri, and the extent to which different thesauri apply these principles in the same way. A measuring instrument was designed for the purpose of evaluating the structure of faceted thesauri. This instrument was applied to fourteen faceted information retrieval thesauri. The study reveals that the thesauri do not share a common definition of what constitutes a facet. In some cases, the thesauri apply both enumerative-style classification and facet analysis to arrange their indexing terms. A number of the facets used in the thesauri are not homogeneous or mutually exclusive. The principle of synthesis is used in only 50% of the thesauri, and no one citation order is used consistently by the thesauri.
- Type
- a
-
Spiteri, L.F.: ¬The use of facet analysis in information retrieval thesauri : an examination of selected guidelines for thesaurus construction (1997)
0.01
0.005032917 = product of:
0.012582293 = sum of:
0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004767807 = score(doc=372,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 372, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=372)
0.007814486 = product of:
0.015628971 = sum of:
0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015628971 = score(doc=372,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 372, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=372)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Facet analysis has been used in the construction of faceted thesauri since the publication of the Information Retrieval Thesaurus of Education Terms in 1968. In spite of the growth in the number of faceted thesauri since then, there appears to be little consensus among thesaurus designers regarding how the principles of facet analysis are to be used in thesauri. An examination of various national and international guidelines for thesaurus construction reveals that they emphasize primarily the construction of alphabetical thesauri, but provide little guidance in the use of facet analysis in thesauri.
- Type
- a
