Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002) 0.01 
    0.010612293 = product of:
  0.026530731 = sum of:
    0.012353794 = weight(_text_:20 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012353794 = score(doc=1858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14381489 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.08590066 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.014176939 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014176939 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18321137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    4.10.2003 19:20:59
    Footnote
    Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.
  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 
    0.009923857 = product of:
  0.049619284 = sum of:
    0.049619284 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049619284 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18321137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    4. 1.2007 10:22:26
  3. Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005) 0.01 
    0.008506163 = product of:
  0.042530812 = sum of:
    0.042530812 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042530812 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18321137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    18. 6.2005 13:16:22
  4. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.01 
    0.008506163 = product of:
  0.042530812 = sum of:
    0.042530812 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042530812 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18321137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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 
    0.00708847 = product of:
  0.03544235 = sum of:
    0.03544235 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03544235 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18321137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  6. Saarti, J.: Consistency of subject indexing of novels by public library professionals and patrons (2002) 0.01 
    0.006988361 = product of:
  0.034941804 = sum of:
    0.034941804 = weight(_text_:20 in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034941804 = score(doc=4473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14381489 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.24296375 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    10. 3.1997 20:31:13
  7. Shoham, S.; Kedar, R.: ¬The subject cataloging of monographs with the use of keywords (2001) 0.00 
    0.0049415175 = product of:
  0.024707587 = sum of:
    0.024707587 = weight(_text_:20 in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024707587 = score(doc=5442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14381489 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.17180131 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    The overall objective of this study was to examine the implementation of a different approach to the expression of the subject content of monographs in the cataloging record, i.e., the use of a post-coordinate, thesaurus of keywords, using inter-indexer consistency testing and in-depth analysis of mistakes in indexing. A sample of 50 non-fiction monographs was subject cataloged by 16 library science students (non-experienced indexers) using the new Hebrew Thesaurus of Indexing Terms (1996). The 800 indexing records of the non-experienced indexers were compared to the "correct indexing records" (prepared by a panel of three experienced indexers). Indexing consistency was measured using two different formulas used in previous inter-indexer studies. A medium level of inter-indexer consistency was found. In the analysis of mistakes, it was found that the most frequent mistake was the assignment of indexing terms to minor subject matter (i.e., subjects that were less than 20% of the content of the book). Among possible explanations offered for these finding are: sparseness of scope notes in the thesaurus, the priority given by Israeli public libraries to Hebrew language materials in the development of their non-fiction collection, and the size of the output of the Israeli publishing industry of non-fiction materials in Hebrew. The results of the consistency tests and the mistakes analysis were also examined in light of several factors: (1) the number of indexing terms assigned; (2) the length of the monographs (number of pages); and (3) subject area of each monograph. The same examinations were carried out for the subject cataloging records prepared by the Israeli Center for Libraries (ICL) for these monographs.
    Date
    28. 7.2006 20:15:08
  8. Qin, J.: Semantic similarities between a keyword database and a controlled vocabulary database : an investigation in the antibiotic resistance literature (2000) 0.00 
    0.0043677255 = product of:
  0.021838628 = sum of:
    0.021838628 = weight(_text_:20 in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021838628 = score(doc=4386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14381489 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 4386, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4386)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The 'KeyWords Plus' in the Science Citation Index database represents an approach to combining citation and semantic indexing in describing the document content. This paper explores the similariites or dissimilarities between citation-semantic and analytic indexing. The dataset consisted of over 400 matching records in the SCI and MEDLINE databases on antibiotic resistance in pneumonia. The degree of similarity in indexing terms was found to vary on a scale from completely different to completely identical with various levels in between. The within-document similarity in the 2 databases was measured by a variation on the Jaccard coefficient - the Inclusion Index. The average inclusion coefficient was 0,4134 for SCI and 0,3371 for Medline. The 20 terms occuring most frequently in each database were identified. The 2 groups of terms shared the same terms that consist of the 'intellectual base' for the subject. conceptual similarity was analyzed through scatterplots of matching and nonmatching terms vs. partially identical and broader/narrower terms. The study also found that both databases differed in assigning terms in various semantic categories. Implications of this research and further studies are suggested
  9. Ansari, M.: Matching between assigned descriptors and title keywords in medical theses (2005) 0.00 
    0.0043677255 = product of:
  0.021838628 = sum of:
    0.021838628 = weight(_text_:20 in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021838628 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14381489 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    11. 2.1997 20:00:30
  10. Gil-Leiva, I.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.: Keywords given by authors of scientific articles in database descriptors (2007) 0.00 
    0.0043677255 = product of:
  0.021838628 = sum of:
    0.021838628 = weight(_text_:20 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021838628 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14381489 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    17. 7.2007 20:46:56
  11. Olson, H.A.; Wolfram, D.: Syntagmatic relationships and indexing consistency on a larger scale (2008) 0.00 
    0.0043677255 = product of:
  0.021838628 = sum of:
    0.021838628 = weight(_text_:20 in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021838628 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14381489 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052318756 = queryNorm
        0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    10. 3.1997 20:31:13

Authors

Types

  • a 10
  • m 1

Themes