Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005) 0.06
    0.06406054 = product of:
      0.12812108 = sum of:
        0.12812108 = sum of:
          0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.09121804 = score(doc=3565,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.
    Date
    18. 6.2005 13:16:22
  2. Neshat, N.; Horri, A.: ¬A study of subject indexing consistency between the National Library of Iran and Humanities Libraries in the area of Iranian studies (2006) 0.01
    0.010763386 = product of:
      0.021526773 = sum of:
        0.021526773 = product of:
          0.043053545 = sum of:
            0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043053545 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    4. 1.2007 10:22:26
  3. Chen, X.: ¬The influence of existing consistency measures on the relationship between indexing consistency and exhaustivity (2008) 0.01
    0.00950188 = product of:
      0.01900376 = sum of:
        0.01900376 = product of:
          0.03800752 = sum of:
            0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03800752 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Consistency studies have discussed the relationship between indexing consistency and exhaustivity, and it commonly accepted that higher exhaustivity results in lower indexing consistency. However, this issue has been oversimplified, and previous studies contain significant misinterpretations. The aim of this study is investigate the relationship between consistency and exhaustivity based on a large sample and to analyse the misinterpretations in earlier studies. A sample of 3,307 monographs, i.e. 6,614 records was drawn from two Chinese bibliographic catalogues. Indexing consistency was measured using two formulae which were popular in previous indexing consistency studies. A relatively high level of consistency was found (64.21% according to the first formula, 70.71% according to the second). Regarding the relationship between consistency and exhaustivity, it was found that when two indexers had identical exhaustivity, indexing consistency was substantially high. On the contrary, when they had different levels of exhaustivity, consistency was significantly low. It was inevitable with the use of the two formulae. Moreover, a detailed discussion was conducted to analyse the misinterpretations in previous studies.
  4. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.01
    0.00922576 = product of:
      0.01845152 = sum of:
        0.01845152 = product of:
          0.03690304 = sum of:
            0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03690304 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
  5. Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006) 0.01
    0.0076881335 = product of:
      0.015376267 = sum of:
        0.015376267 = product of:
          0.030752534 = sum of:
            0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030752534 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22