Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.046782747 = product of:
  0.093565494 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 7924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=7924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 7924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7924)
    0.036596604 = product of:
      0.07319321 = sum of:
        0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 7924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07319321 = score(doc=7924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 7924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As a general medical journal, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) contains a wide range of subject matter, and many types of information need to be incorporated in its semi-annual index, Index Medicus vocabulary can be used for clinical articles, but non-clinical matter presents problems of soft language. A weekly publication, the BMJ runs to about 1.600 pages a volume; so succint indexing is important, as is keeping to schedule. The number of authors and the vagueness of the journal users present particular problems that can be ameliorated by the design of the index. Medicine is a useful adjunct for subject access. Both the journal and the index have changed during a decade in which social and political aspects of medicine have assumed greater importance

0.038664706 = product of:
  0.15465882 = sum of:
    0.15465882 = sum of:
      0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 6940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083649375 = score(doc=6940,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 6940, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6940)
      0.07100945 = weight(_text_:22 in 6940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07100945 = score(doc=6940,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 6940, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6940)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wordmanship is a humorous dictionary cum index. Analyzing its structure, considers general aspects of the design of a reference work in relation to its index. Indexers should be consulted at the design stage of reference books, as they may suggest reversal of the primary entries, and the index entries; refine the cross-reference-structure; revise locator notation; and select appropriate typography

Date

8. 3.1997 20:22:25

Source

Indexer. 20(1996) no.1, S.18-22

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=3830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 3830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers the relationship between indexing and hypermedia. Conceptualizes adequate models of index structures and indexing procedures; and establishes what readers do when accessing indexes. There is a range of explicit and implicit models underlying databases, documents and indexes. A fundamental starting point for the development of substructure indexing tools for use with hypermedia is the precise specification of such models. Analysis of substructure indexing models will allow the identification of largely technical constraints and conceptual constraints. Related also are aspects of the problem deriving from how indexes can, and should be, presented. Gives a framework for the identification of such models. Examines index use. A field study was conducted looking at the use accountants make of indexing facilities an a large financial services document. Task analysis highlights the range of problems encountered, strategies employed and the kinds of solutions arrived at. There are 6 key factors underlying the 'rule of thumb' procedure users employ when interrogating an index. Discusses the implications of this study for the design of indexing within hypermedia environment

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=4824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the InfoAccess Project at the Univ of Saskatchewan Libraries which compared searching of manual and automated indexes by 22 undergraduate psychology students to determine their searching preferences by ranking 'Psychological abstracts' in 3 formats: print, CD-ROM and a locally mounted tape service called InfoAccess. Their satisfaction regarding the physical environment, equipment, and instructional aids was also recorded. Users preferred to search with CD-ROM, but found InfoAccess to be an acceptable alternative

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Indexer. 21(1998) no.1, S.22-23

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4640, 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=4640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9. 4.2000 17:22:00