Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
rvk_ss%3a%2200 80852 allgemeines %2f buch- und bibliothekswesen%2c informationswissenschaft %2f bibliothekswesen %2f bibliothekswesen in einzelnen L%c3%aendern und einzelne bibliotheken %2f einzelne deutsche bibliotheken %2f bibliotheken S %2f stuttgart %2f university%c3%A4tsbibliothek hohenheim%22 5

Chan, L.M.: Alphabetical arrangement and subject collocation in Library of Congress Subject Headings (1977) 0.00

6.2059314E-4 = product of:
  0.009308897 = sum of:
    0.00705523 = weight(_text_:in in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00705523 = score(doc=2268,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract: Beginning with Cutter, theorists of subject headings have conceded that certain elements of systematic arrangement in the dictionary catalog are inevitable; yet the fact that no specific guidelines have ever been developed for the determination of the extent to which subject collocation at the expense of specific and direct entry should be allowed has resulted in the many irregularities and inconsistencies now existing in the LCSH
Source: Library resources and technical services. 21(1977), S.156-169

Wilson, P.: ¬The end of specifity (1979) 0.00

4.8283124E-4 = product of:
  0.007242468 = sum of:
    0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004988801 = score(doc=2274,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=2274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract: Recently announced subject cataloging practices at the Library of Congress, calling for systematic duplication of entries at specific and generic levels, are in direct violation of the rule of exclusively specific entry, hitherto accepted by LC. It is argued that if the new practices are justified, consistency calls for their general application, which results in abandonment of the rule. But the new practices do not accomplish their ostensible goals, do not reveal more of the content of LC's collections, do introduce new inconveniences, do constitute a pointless enlargement of catalogs, and hence should be abandoned
Source: Library resources and technical services. 23(1979), S.116-122

Cleverdon, C.W.: Evaluation tests of information retrieval systems (1970) 0.00

1.5024448E-4 = product of:
  0.004507334 = sum of:
    0.004507334 = weight(_text_:s in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004507334 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)

Source: Journal of documentation. 26(1970), S.55-67

Swanson, D.R.: Some unexplained aspects of the Cranfield tests of indexing performance factors (1971) 0.00

1.5024448E-4 = product of:
  0.004507334 = sum of:
    0.004507334 = weight(_text_:s in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004507334 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)

Source: Library quarterly. 41(1971), S.223-228

Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors