Search (308 results, page 1 of 16)

0.10429774 = sum of:
  0.047840957 = product of:
    0.19136383 = sum of:
      0.19136383 = weight(_text_:authors in 527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19136383 = score(doc=527,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 527, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=527)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.056456786 = product of:
    0.11291357 = sum of:
      0.11291357 = weight(_text_:22 in 527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11291357 = score(doc=527,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 527, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=527)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

OCLC systems and services. 9(1993) no.3, S.20-22

0.09821527 = sum of:
  0.021142917 = product of:
    0.08457167 = sum of:
      0.08457167 = weight(_text_:authors in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08457167 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07707235 = sum of:
    0.04178686 = weight(_text_:w in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04178686 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05208721 = queryNorm
        0.21051927 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.03528549 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03528549 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05208721 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)

Abstract

In this article, we present a method to automatically build large labeled datasets for the author ambiguity problem in the academic world by leveraging the authoritative academic resources, ORCID and DOI. Using the method, we built LAGOS-AND, two large, gold-standard sub-datasets for author name disambiguation (AND), of which LAGOS-AND-BLOCK is created for clustering-based AND research and LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE is created for classification-based AND research. Our LAGOS-AND datasets are substantially different from the existing ones. The initial versions of the datasets (v1.0, released in February 2021) include 7.5 M citations authored by 798 K unique authors (LAGOS-AND-BLOCK) and close to 1 M instances (LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE). And both datasets show close similarities to the whole Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) across validations of six facets. In building the datasets, we reveal the variation degrees of last names in three literature databases, PubMed, MAG, and Semantic Scholar, by comparing author names hosted to the authors' official last names shown on the ORCID pages. Furthermore, we evaluate several baseline disambiguation methods as well as the MAG's author IDs system on our datasets, and the evaluation helps identify several interesting findings. We hope the datasets and findings will bring new insights for future studies. The code and datasets are publicly available.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:40:36

0.09248682 = product of:
  0.18497364 = sum of:
    0.18497364 = sum of:
      0.100288466 = weight(_text_:w in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100288466 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.5052462 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.08468518 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08468518 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.054299925 = sum of:
  0.029600082 = product of:
    0.11840033 = sum of:
      0.11840033 = weight(_text_:authors in 6740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11840033 = score(doc=6740,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 6740, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6740)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024699843 = product of:
    0.049399685 = sum of:
      0.049399685 = weight(_text_:22 in 6740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049399685 = score(doc=6740,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6740, 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=6740)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers the relevance of Cutter's principles of bibliographic access to Internet accessible digital materials and explores new methods for applying these principles in the context of new information technologies. Examines the value for retrieval of collecting authors' names, identifying authors' roles, collocating works and versions, and providing subject access through classification and controlled vocabularies for digital resources available through the WWW. Identifies emerging technologies and techniques that may be used in lieu of or as a supplement to traditional cataloguing to achieve these functions in organizing access to Internet resources

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.054299925 = sum of:
  0.029600082 = product of:
    0.11840033 = sum of:
      0.11840033 = weight(_text_:authors in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11840033 = score(doc=2600,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024699843 = product of:
    0.049399685 = sum of:
      0.049399685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049399685 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research libraries are using batchloading to provide access to many resources that they would otherwise be unable to catalog given the staff and other resources available. To explore how such libraries are managing their batchloading activities, the authors conducted a survey of the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group member libraries. The survey addressed staffing, budgets, scope, workflow, management, quality standards, information technology support, collaborative efforts, and assessment of batchloading activities. The authors provide an analysis of the survey results along with suggestions for process improvements and future research.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.053950645 = product of:
  0.10790129 = sum of:
    0.10790129 = sum of:
      0.058501605 = weight(_text_:w in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058501605 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.049399685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049399685 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2591, 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=2591)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 1.1999 19:22:13

0.05214887 = sum of:
  0.023920478 = product of:
    0.09568191 = sum of:
      0.09568191 = weight(_text_:authors in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09568191 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028228393 = product of:
    0.056456786 = sum of:
      0.056456786 = weight(_text_:22 in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056456786 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2502, 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=2502)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines a simpler cataloguing format offered by PCs, without disturbing compatibility, using A-Z cataloguing rules for data input, category codes for tagging and computer-supported data input through windows. Gives numerous examples of catalogue entries, basing techniques on certain category schemes set out by Klaus Haller and Hans Popst. Examines catalogue entries in respect of categories of data bases for authors and corporate names, titles, single volume works, serial issues of collected works, and limited editions of works in several volumes.

Source

Bibliotheksdienst. 22(1988) H.9, S.841-856

0.046542794 = sum of:
  0.0253715 = product of:
    0.101486 = sum of:
      0.101486 = weight(_text_:authors in 6521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101486 = score(doc=6521,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 6521, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6521)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021171294 = product of:
    0.04234259 = sum of:
      0.04234259 = weight(_text_:22 in 6521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04234259 = score(doc=6521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6521, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6521)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines changes in the rules for cataloguing certein categories of printed material, anonymous works, including: those described as being 'by the author of' another named work; pseudonymous works; edited works (collections of writings of several authors); and conference proceedings. Discusses the relevant rules from the British Museum, the 1908 joint code, the Bodleian, Cambridge University Library and AACR2, Samples of London publications taken in specimen years between 1841 and 1991 show that there has been a decrease in anonymous works and in works with personal authors, offset by a sharp increase in multiple authorship, edited works and conference proceedings. Concludes that these changes have taken place in response to external forces. Some changes have been because the rules have been found to be unworkable or based on unnecessary or false distinctions which were impossible for the cataloguer to interpret

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.29-50

0.04563026 = sum of:
  0.020930419 = product of:
    0.083721675 = sum of:
      0.083721675 = weight(_text_:authors in 2823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083721675 = score(doc=2823,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2823, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2823)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024699843 = product of:
    0.049399685 = sum of:
      0.049399685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049399685 = score(doc=2823,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2823, 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=2823)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Book dedications by authors, often in verse form and appearing just before the title page, are one of the 6 elements describes by the French scholar Genette as paratextual. For some reasons dedications have failed to interest librarians, yet books containing them can be a valid object of bibliographic study, for the reasons that they carry special markings: are an example of a specific literary or semantic class; and reveal linguistic/stylistic features. Examines the history of literary dedications, citing examples by well-known writers, and suggests that cataloguing software should have a special field to record dedication

Date

22. 2.1999 20:41:06

0.04563026 = sum of:
  0.020930419 = product of:
    0.083721675 = sum of:
      0.083721675 = weight(_text_:authors in 482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083721675 = score(doc=482,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 482, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=482)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024699843 = product of:
    0.049399685 = sum of:
      0.049399685 = weight(_text_:22 in 482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049399685 = score(doc=482,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 482, 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=482)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors describe the creation of online series authority records on the University of Florida Libraries' NOTIS-based LUIS system. It is an original method that uses serial bibliographic records as a basis for series authority records. We hope that our explanation of this pioneering method will be useful in varying degrees to other libraries attempting to convert their series authorities to an online environment. We also hope that this paper will prompt discussion among catalogers about series authorities in the online environment.

Date

8. 1.2007 12:29:22

0.04563026 = sum of:
  0.020930419 = product of:
    0.083721675 = sum of:
      0.083721675 = weight(_text_:authors in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083721675 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024699843 = product of:
    0.049399685 = sum of:
      0.049399685 = weight(_text_:22 in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049399685 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources and considers shortand long-term directions for cataloging and the general provision of library services for remotely accessible, electronic information resources. The strengths and weakness of using a library catalog model to improve access to Internet resources are discussed and compared with a review of related efforts. Based on experience gained through two OCLC Internet cataloging projects, the authors recommend continued and vigorous appplication of library cataloging standards and methods for Internet resources with the expectation that catalogs, cataloging, and libraries in general will continue to evolve.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.197-238

0.04563026 = sum of:
  0.020930419 = product of:
    0.083721675 = sum of:
      0.083721675 = weight(_text_:authors in 2285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083721675 = score(doc=2285,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2285, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2285)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024699843 = product of:
    0.049399685 = sum of:
      0.049399685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049399685 = score(doc=2285,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2285, 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=2285)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, to be known as Resource Description and Access (RDA), has indicated that the replacement for the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) will allow the use of family names as authors and will provide rules for their formation. This paper discusses what a family name describes; examines how information seekers look for family names and what they expect to find; describes the ways in which family names have been established in Anglo-American cataloging and archival traditions; asks how adequately the headings established under these rules help users seek such information; and suggests how revised cataloging rules might better enable users to identify resources that meet their needs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.039920975 = product of:
  0.07984195 = sum of:
    0.07984195 = product of:
      0.1596839 = sum of:
        0.1596839 = weight(_text_:22 in 4362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1596839 = score(doc=4362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4362, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:22:27

0.03342949 = product of:
  0.06685898 = sum of:
    0.06685898 = product of:
      0.13371795 = sum of:
        0.13371795 = weight(_text_:w in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13371795 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.67366165 = fieldWeight in 1837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.032593045 = sum of:
  0.0149503 = product of:
    0.0598012 = sum of:
      0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 2937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0598012 = score(doc=2937,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2937, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2937)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017642746 = product of:
    0.03528549 = sum of:
      0.03528549 = weight(_text_:22 in 2937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03528549 = score(doc=2937,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2937, 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=2937)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In authorship attribution, various distance-based metrics have been proposed to determine the most probable author of a disputed text. In this paradigm, a distance is computed between each author profile and the query text. These values are then employed only to rank the possible authors. In this article, we analyze their distribution and show that we can model it as a mixture of 2 Beta distributions. Based on this finding, we demonstrate how we can derive a more accurate probability that the closest author is, in fact, the real author. To evaluate this approach, we have chosen 4 authorship attribution methods (Burrows' Delta, Kullback-Leibler divergence, Labbé's intertextual distance, and the naïve Bayes). As the first test collection, we have downloaded 224 State of the Union addresses (from 1790 to 2014) delivered by 41 U.S. presidents. The second test collection is formed by the Federalist Papers. The evaluations indicate that the accuracy rate of some authorship decisions can be improved. The suggested method can signal that the proposed assignment should be interpreted as possible, without strong certainty. Being able to quantify the certainty associated with an authorship decision can be a useful component when important decisions must be taken.

Date

7. 5.2016 21:22:27

0.032593045 = sum of:
  0.0149503 = product of:
    0.0598012 = sum of:
      0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0598012 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5930, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5930)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017642746 = product of:
    0.03528549 = sum of:
      0.03528549 = weight(_text_:22 in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03528549 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5930, 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=5930)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In author name disambiguation, author forenames are used to decide which name instances are disambiguated together and how much they are likely to refer to the same author. Despite such a crucial role of forenames, their effect on the performance of heuristic (string matching) and algorithmic disambiguation is not well understood. This study assesses the contributions of forenames in author name disambiguation using multiple labeled data sets under varying ratios and lengths of full forenames, reflecting real-world scenarios in which an author is represented by forename variants (synonym) and some authors share the same forenames (homonym). The results show that increasing the ratios of full forenames substantially improves both heuristic and machine-learning-based disambiguation. Performance gains by algorithmic disambiguation are pronounced when many forenames are initialized or homonyms are prevalent. As the ratios of full forenames increase, however, they become marginal compared to those by string matching. Using a small portion of forename strings does not reduce much the performances of both heuristic and algorithmic disambiguation methods compared to using full-length strings. These findings provide practical suggestions, such as restoring initialized forenames into a full-string format via record linkage for improved disambiguation performances.

Date

11. 7.2020 13:22:58

0.029250802 = product of:
  0.058501605 = sum of:
    0.058501605 = product of:
      0.11700321 = sum of:
        0.11700321 = weight(_text_:w in 6334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11700321 = score(doc=6334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.58945394 = fieldWeight in 6334, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.029250802 = product of:
  0.058501605 = sum of:
    0.058501605 = product of:
      0.11700321 = sum of:
        0.11700321 = weight(_text_:w in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11700321 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.58945394 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.028228393 = product of:
  0.056456786 = sum of:
    0.056456786 = product of:
      0.11291357 = sum of:
        0.11291357 = weight(_text_:22 in 4397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11291357 = score(doc=4397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4397, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Serials librarian. 22(1992), S.371-391

0.027149962 = sum of:
  0.014800041 = product of:
    0.059200164 = sum of:
      0.059200164 = weight(_text_:authors in 1475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059200164 = score(doc=1475,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.24931014 = fieldWeight in 1475, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1475)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012349921 = product of:
    0.024699843 = sum of:
      0.024699843 = weight(_text_:22 in 1475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024699843 = score(doc=1475,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1475, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1475)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: 1. Library Catalogue : Its Nature, Factions, and Importance in a Library System 2. History of Modern Library Catalogues 3. Catalogue Codes: Origin, Growth and Development 4. Principles of Planning and Provision of the Library Catalogue 5.Catalogue Entries and their Functions in Achieving the Objectives of the Library Catalogue 6.Descriptive Cataloguing 7. Physical Forms of the Catalogue-I Manual Catalogues 8. Physical Forms of the Catalogues-II Computerised Cataloges 9. Varieties of Catalogues, their Scope and Functions 10. Subject Cataloguing 11. Cataloguing Department: Organization and Administration. 12. Cost Analysis of Cataloguing Procedures and Suggested Economies 13. Co-operation and Centralization in Cataloguing 14. Union Catalogues and Subject Specialisation 15. Cataloguing of Special Material 16. Arrangement, Filing, Guiding of catalogue and Instructions for its Use 17. Education and Training of Cataloguers 18.Documentation : An Extension of Cataloguing and Classification Applied to Isolates 19.Catalogue Cards, Their Style and Reproduction Methods 20. Work of Personal Authors 21. Choice and Entry of Personal Names 22. Works of Corporate Authors 23. Legal Publications 24. Choice of Headings for Corporate Bodies 25. Works of Unknown Authorship : Entry under Uniform Titles 26. Acces Points to Books and Meta- Books by A-ACR2 27. AACR2 1988 revision : Choice of Access Points to Name Headings and Uniform Titles 28. Added Entries Other Than Subject Entries 29. Subject Entries 30. Analytiacal Entries 31. Series Note and Series Entry 32. Contents, Notes and Annotation 33. References 34. Display of Entries Appendix-I Select Aids and Guides for the Cataloguer Appendix-II Definitions of Terms Commonly used in Cataloguing Appendix-III Cataloguing Examination: Select Questions Appendix-IV Implications of the adoption of A-ACR2