Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016527288 = product of:
  0.06610915 = sum of:
    0.06610915 = weight(_text_:data in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06610915 = score(doc=2883,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.5468357 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Optimal retrieval in on-line searching can be achieved through combined use of both natural language and controlled vocabularies. However, there is a large variety of types of controlled vocabulary in data bases and often more than one in a single data base. Optimal use of these vocabularies requires understanding what types of languages are involved, and taking advantage of the particular mix of vocabularies in a given data base. Examples 4 major types of indexing and classification used in data bases and puts these 4 in the context of 3 other approaches to subject access. Discusses how to evaluate a new data base for various forms of subject access.

0.016527288 = product of:
  0.06610915 = sum of:
    0.06610915 = weight(_text_:data in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06610915 = score(doc=207,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.5468357 = fieldWeight in 207, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=207)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Optimal retrieval in on-line searching can be achieved through combined use of both natural language and controlled vocabularies. However, there is a large variety of types of controlled vocabulary in data bases and often more than one in a single data base. Optimal use of these vocabularies requires understanding what types of languages are involved, and taking advantage of the particular mix of vocabularies in a given data base. Examples 4 major types of indexing and classification used in data bases and puts these 4 in the context of 3 other approaches to subject access. Discusses how to evaluate a new data base for various forms of subject access.

0.008959521 = product of:
  0.035838082 = sum of:
    0.035838082 = weight(_text_:data in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035838082 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences

0.008447117 = product of:
  0.03378847 = sum of:
    0.03378847 = weight(_text_:data in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03378847 = score(doc=762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Delineates on the changing role of vocabulary control devices such as classification, subject headings, and thesaurus. Identifies the basic issue in the design and development of these devices and their role in the changing information technology. The paper identifies the differentiations needed in the new roles of these devices in data base technology