Search (94 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  1. Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960) 0.05 
    0.049009997 = product of:
  0.098019995 = sum of:
    0.098019995 = sum of:
      0.011759429 = weight(_text_:s in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011759429 = score(doc=6158,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
      0.086260565 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086260565 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
    Pages
    166 S
  2. Braam, R.R.; Bruil, J.: Quality of indexing information : authors' views on indexing of their articles in chemical abstracts online CA-file (1992) 0.03 
    0.03373047 = sum of:
  0.031651676 = product of:
    0.1266067 = sum of:
      0.1266067 = weight(_text_:authors in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1266067 = score(doc=2638,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0020787928 = product of:
    0.0041575856 = sum of:
      0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0041575856 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations
    Source
    Journal of information science. 18(1992) no.5, S.399-408
  3. Gil-Leiva, I.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.: Keywords given by authors of scientific articles in database descriptors (2007) 0.03 
    0.032189168 = sum of:
  0.03045684 = product of:
    0.12182736 = sum of:
      0.12182736 = weight(_text_:authors in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12182736 = score(doc=211,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0017323275 = product of:
    0.003464655 = sum of:
      0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003464655 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, the authors analyze the keywords given by authors of scientific articles and the descriptors assigned to the articles to ascertain the presence of the keywords in the descriptors. Six-hundred forty INSPEC (Information Service for Physics, Engineering, and Computing), CAB (Current Agriculture Bibliography) abstracts, ISTA (Information Science and Technology Abstracts), and LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) database records were consulted. After detailed comparisons, it was found that keywords provided by authors have an important presence in the database descriptors studied; nearly 25% of all the keywords appeared in exactly the same form as descriptors, with another 21% though normalized, still detected in the descriptors. This means that almost 46% of keywords appear in the descriptors, either as such or after normalization. Elsewhere, three distinct indexing policies appear, one represented by INSPEC and LISA (indexers seem to have freedom to assign the descriptors they deem necessary); another is represented by CAB (no record has fewer than four descriptors and, in general, a large number of descriptors is employed). In contrast, in ISTA, a certain institutional code exists towards economy in indexing because 84% of records contain only four descriptors.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1175-1187
  4. Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996) 0.03 
    0.031525247 = product of:
  0.06305049 = sum of:
    0.06305049 = sum of:
      0.005543448 = weight(_text_:s in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005543448 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
      0.057507046 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057507046 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
  5. Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990) 0.03 
    0.027584592 = product of:
  0.055169184 = sum of:
    0.055169184 = sum of:
      0.004850517 = weight(_text_:s in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004850517 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
      0.050318666 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050318666 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
  6. 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) 0.03 
    0.027584592 = product of:
  0.055169184 = sum of:
    0.055169184 = sum of:
      0.004850517 = weight(_text_:s in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004850517 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.050318666 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050318666 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = 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)
    Date
    4. 1.2007 10:22:26
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) no.1, S.67-76
  7. Reich, P.; Biever, E.J.: Indexing consistency : The input/output function of thesauri (1991) 0.03 
    0.027137194 = sum of:
  0.02436547 = product of:
    0.09746188 = sum of:
      0.09746188 = weight(_text_:authors in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09746188 = score(doc=2258,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 2258, 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=2258)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.002771724 = product of:
    0.005543448 = sum of:
      0.005543448 = weight(_text_:s in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005543448 = score(doc=2258,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2258, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2258)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study measures inter-indexer consistency as determined by the number of identical terms assigned to the same document by two different indexing organizations using the same thesaurus as a source for the entry vocabulary. The authors derive consistency figures of 24 percent and 45 percent for two samples. Factors in the consistency failures include variations in indexing depth, differences in choice of concepts for indexing, different indexing policies, and a highly specific indexing vocabulray. Results indicate that broad search strategies are often necessary for adequate search yields.
    Source
    College and research libraries. 52(1991) no.4, S.336-342
  8. Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005) 0.02 
    0.024504999 = product of:
  0.049009997 = sum of:
    0.049009997 = sum of:
      0.0058797146 = weight(_text_:s in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0058797146 = score(doc=3565,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.043130282 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043130282 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = 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)
    Date
    18. 6.2005 13:16:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882
  9. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.02 
    0.023643933 = product of:
  0.047287866 = sum of:
    0.047287866 = sum of:
      0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0041575856 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
      0.043130282 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043130282 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = 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)
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 32(2000) no.1, S.4-8
  10. Iivonen, M.; Kivimäki, K.: Common entities and missing properties : similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts (1998) 0.02 
    0.020352896 = sum of:
  0.018274104 = product of:
    0.07309642 = sum of:
      0.07309642 = weight(_text_:authors in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07309642 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0020787928 = product of:
    0.0041575856 = sum of:
      0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0041575856 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The selection and representation of concepts in indexing of the same documents in 2 databases of library and information studies are considered. the authors compare the indexing of 49 documents in KINF and LISA. They focus on the types of concepts presented in indexing, the degree of concept consistency in indexing, and similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts. The largest group of indexed concepts in both databases was the category of entities while concepts belonging to the category of properties were almost missing in both databases. The second largest group of indexed concepts in KINF was the category of activities and in LISA the category of dimensions. Although the concept consistency between KINF and LISA remained rather low and was only 34%, there were approximately 2,2 concepts per document which were indexed from the same documents in both databses. These common concepts belonged mostly to the category of entities
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 25(1998) no.3, S.90-102
  11. Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006) 0.02 
    0.01970328 = product of:
  0.03940656 = sum of:
    0.03940656 = sum of:
      0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003464655 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
      0.035941906 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035941906 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = 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)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.2, S.111-119
  12. White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014) 0.02 
    0.01970328 = product of:
  0.03940656 = sum of:
    0.03940656 = sum of:
      0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003464655 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.035941906 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035941906 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.3, S.307-329
  13. Ansari, M.: Matching between assigned descriptors and title keywords in medical theses (2005) 0.02 
    0.016960748 = sum of:
  0.01522842 = product of:
    0.06091368 = sum of:
      0.06091368 = weight(_text_:authors in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06091368 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4739, 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=4739)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0017323275 = product of:
    0.003464655 = sum of:
      0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003464655 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - To examine the degree of exact and partial match between the assigned descriptors and title keywords of medical theses written in Farsi and submitted for a PhD degree.Design/methodology/approach - A sample population of 506 theses in Pediatrics, Gynecology, Cardiology and Psychiatry was randomly picked out of a total of 909 indexed in the Indexing Department of the Central Library of the Iran University of Medical Science and Health Care Services. The results obtained are compared with those reported for other documents written in Farsi and English. Where applicable, the influence of the foreign language and its structure is commented on.Findings - It is shown that the degree of match between the assigned descriptors and the title keywords is greater than 70 per cent, equaling those reported for Farsi books and Michigan University Library catalogue in USA. It is also shown that the frequency of the match has increased since 1982, indicating that the authors have become more attentive in their choice of title.Research limitations/implications - Detailed analysis of results, however, shows significant differences between the degree of exact match amongst the four categories, with psychiatry theses that use more common terms showing highest exact match findings (50 per cent).Originality/value - This paper highlights the need for a closer collaboration with medical institutions for definition of approved terms and their incorporation in indexation in order to improve findings in various medical categories.
    Source
    Library review. 54(2005) no.7, S.410-414
  14. Olson, H.A.; Wolfram, D.: Syntagmatic relationships and indexing consistency on a larger scale (2008) 0.02 
    0.016960748 = sum of:
  0.01522842 = product of:
    0.06091368 = sum of:
      0.06091368 = weight(_text_:authors in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06091368 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2214, 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=2214)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0017323275 = product of:
    0.003464655 = sum of:
      0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003464655 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this article is to examine interindexer consistency on a larger scale than other studies have done to determine if group consensus is reached by larger numbers of indexers and what, if any, relationships emerge between assigned terms. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 64 MLIS students were recruited to assign up to five terms to a document. The authors applied basic data modeling and the exploratory statistical techniques of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis to determine whether relationships exist in indexing consistency and the coocurrence of assigned terms. Findings - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms to a document follows an inverse shape, although it is not strictly power law-based unlike many other social phenomena. The exploratory techniques revealed that groups of terms clustered together. The resulting term cooccurrence relationships were largely syntagmatic. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on the indexing of one article by non-expert indexers and are, thus, not generalizable. Based on the study findings, along with the growing popularity of folksonomies and the apparent authority of communally developed information resources, communally developed indexes based on group consensus may have merit. Originality/value - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms has been studied primarily on a small scale. Few studies have examined indexing on a larger scale with more than a handful of indexers. Recognition of the differences in indexing assignment has implications for the development of public information systems, especially those that do not use a controlled vocabulary and those tagged by end-users. In such cases, multiple access points that accommodate the different ways that users interpret content are needed so that searchers may be guided to relevant content despite using different terminology.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.4, S.602-615
  15. Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002) 0.01 
    0.008388572 = product of:
  0.016777145 = sum of:
    0.016777145 = sum of:
      0.0024003836 = weight(_text_:s in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0024003836 = score(doc=1858,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.04161215 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.014376761 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014376761 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Footnote
    Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.
    Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)
    Pages
    33 S
  16. Hurwitz, F.I.: ¬A study of indexer consistency (1969) 0.00 
    0.003464655 = product of:
  0.00692931 = sum of:
    0.00692931 = product of:
      0.01385862 = sum of:
        0.01385862 = weight(_text_:s in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01385862 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053056188 = queryNorm
            0.24024783 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    American documentation. 20(1969), S.92-94
  17. Cooper, W.S.: Is interindexer consistency a hobgoblin? (1969) 0.00 
    0.003464655 = product of:
  0.00692931 = sum of:
    0.00692931 = product of:
      0.01385862 = sum of:
        0.01385862 = weight(_text_:s in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01385862 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053056188 = queryNorm
            0.24024783 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    American documentation. 20(1969), S.268-278
  18. Gregor, D.; Mandel, C.: Cataloging must change! (1991) 0.00 
    0.0029398573 = product of:
  0.0058797146 = sum of:
    0.0058797146 = product of:
      0.011759429 = sum of:
        0.011759429 = weight(_text_:s in 1999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011759429 = score(doc=1999,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053056188 = queryNorm
            0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 1999, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch die Erwiderung von T. Mann in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 23(1997) nos.3/4, S.3-45
    Source
    Library journal. 116(1991) no.6, S.42-47
  19. Cleverdon, C.W.: ¬The Cranfield tests on index language devices (1967) 0.00 
    0.0029398573 = product of:
  0.0058797146 = sum of:
    0.0058797146 = product of:
      0.011759429 = sum of:
        0.011759429 = weight(_text_:s in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011759429 = score(doc=1957,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053056188 = queryNorm
            0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.47-58.
    Source
    Aslib proceedings. 19(1967), S.173-194
  20. Lancaster, F.W.; Mills, J.: Testing indexes and index language devices : the ASLIB Cranfield project (1964) 0.00 
    0.002771724 = product of:
  0.005543448 = sum of:
    0.005543448 = product of:
      0.011086896 = sum of:
        0.011086896 = weight(_text_:s in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011086896 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053056188 = queryNorm
            0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    American documentation. 15(1964), S.4-13

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 90
  • r 2
  • m 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes