Search (94 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  1. Shoham, S.; Kedar, R.: ¬The subject cataloging of monographs with the use of keywords (2001) 0.00 
    0.0040011914 = product of:
  0.040011913 = sum of:
    0.0049006958 = product of:
      0.0098013915 = sum of:
        0.0098013915 = weight(_text_:29 in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0098013915 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.026719471 = weight(_text_:post in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026719471 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10409636 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.25668016 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
    0.008391745 = product of:
      0.012587617 = sum of:
        0.0027862256 = weight(_text_:a in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027862256 = score(doc=5442,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
        0.0098013915 = weight(_text_:29 in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0098013915 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Report on a discussion forum of the ALCTS SAC Subcommittee an Metadata and Subject Analysis
    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.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.2, S.29-54
    Type
    a
  2. Kedar, R.; Shoham, S.: ¬The subject cataloging of monographs with the use of a thesaurus (2003) 0.00 
    0.0027504403 = product of:
  0.041256603 = sum of:
    0.040079206 = weight(_text_:post in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040079206 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10409636 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.38502026 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
    0.0011773953 = product of:
      0.003532186 = sum of:
        0.003532186 = weight(_text_:a in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003532186 = score(doc=2700,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    This paper presents the findings of a study of indexing procedure with the use of a thesaurus for post-coordination. In the first phase of the study, the indexing records of 50 books, prepared by a central cataloging service (the Israeli Center for Libraries), were compared with the indexing records for these books prepared by three independent indexers. In the second phase, indexing records for three books prepared by 51 librarians were studied. In both phases, indexing records were analyzed for mistakes and possible reasons for these mistakes are offered.
    Type
    a
  3. Huffman, G.D.; Vital, D.A.; Bivins, R.G.: Generating indices with lexical association methods : term uniqueness (1990) 0.00 
    0.0020815786 = product of:
  0.020815786 = sum of:
    0.00612587 = product of:
      0.01225174 = sum of:
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0045597646 = product of:
      0.009119529 = sum of:
        0.009119529 = weight(_text_:online in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009119529 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010130152 = product of:
      0.015195228 = sum of:
        0.002943488 = weight(_text_:a in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002943488 = score(doc=4152,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    A software system has been developed which orders citations retrieved from an online database in terms of relevancy. The system resulted from an effort generated by NASA's Technology Utilization Program to create new advanced software tools to largely automate the process of determining relevancy of database citations retrieved to support large technology transfer studies. The ranking is based on the generation of an enriched vocabulary using lexical association methods, a user assessment of the vocabulary and a combination of the user assessment and the lexical metric. One of the key elements in relevancy ranking is the enriched vocabulary -the terms mst be both unique and descriptive. This paper examines term uniqueness. Six lexical association methods were employed to generate characteristic word indices. A limited subset of the terms - the highest 20,40,60 and 7,5% of the uniquess words - we compared and uniquess factors developed. Computational times were also measured. It was found that methods based on occurrences and signal produced virtually the same terms. The limited subset of terms producedby the exact and centroid discrimination value were also nearly identical. Unique terms sets were produced by teh occurrence, variance and discrimination value (centroid), An end-user evaluation showed that the generated terms were largely distinct and had values of word precision which were consistent with values of the search precision.
    Date
    23.11.1995 11:29:46
    Type
    a
  4. Cleverdon, C.W.: ¬The Cranfield tests on index language devices (1967) 0.00 
    0.001768757 = product of:
  0.026531354 = sum of:
    0.025478259 = weight(_text_:u in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025478259 = score(doc=1957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
    0.0010530944 = product of:
      0.003159283 = sum of:
        0.003159283 = weight(_text_:a in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003159283 = score(doc=1957,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Footnote
    Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.47-58.
    Type
    a
  5. Chen, X.: Indexing consistency between online catalogues (2008) 0.00 
    0.0016219591 = product of:
  0.024329387 = sum of:
    0.017880905 = product of:
      0.03576181 = sum of:
        0.03576181 = weight(_text_:dienstleistungen in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03576181 = score(doc=2209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10771505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.009912 = idf(docFreq=294, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.33200386 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.009912 = idf(docFreq=294, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0064484817 = product of:
      0.012896963 = sum of:
        0.012896963 = weight(_text_:online in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012896963 = score(doc=2209,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    In der globalen Online-Umgebung stellen viele bibliographische Dienstleistungen integrierten Zugang zu unterschiedlichen internetbasierten OPACs zur Verfügung. In solch einer Umgebung erwarten Benutzer mehr Übereinstimmungen innerhalb und zwischen den Systemen zu sehen. Zweck dieser Studie ist, die Indexierungskonsistenz zwischen Systemen zu untersuchen. Währenddessen werden einige Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen können, untersucht. Wichtigstes Ziel dieser Studie ist, die Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen herauszufinden, damit sinnvolle Vorschläge gemacht werden können, um die Indexierungskonsistenz zu verbessern. Eine Auswahl von 3307 Monographien wurde aus zwei chinesischen bibliographischen Katalogen gewählt. Nach Hooper's Formel war die durchschnittliche Indexierungskonsistenz für Indexterme 64,2% und für Klassennummern 61,6%. Nach Rolling's Formel war sie für Indexterme 70,7% und für Klassennummern 63,4%. Mehrere Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen, wurden untersucht: (1) Indexierungsbereite; (2) Indexierungsspezifizität; (3) Länge der Monographien; (4) Kategorie der Indexierungssprache; (5) Sachgebiet der Monographien; (6) Entwicklung von Disziplinen; (7) Struktur des Thesaurus oder der Klassifikation; (8) Erscheinungsjahr. Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen wurden ebenfalls analysiert. Die Analyse ergab: (1) den Indexieren mangelt es an Fachwissen, Vertrautheit mit den Indexierungssprachen und den Indexierungsregeln, so dass viele Inkonsistenzen verursacht wurden; (2) der Mangel an vereinheitlichten oder präzisen Regeln brachte ebenfalls Inkonsistenzen hervor; (3) verzögerte Überarbeitungen der Indexierungssprachen, Mangel an terminologischer Kontrolle, zu wenige Erläuterungen und "siehe auch" Referenzen, sowie die hohe semantische Freiheit bei der Auswahl von Deskriptoren oder Klassen, verursachten Inkonsistenzen.
  6. Ladewig, C.; Rieger, M.: Ähnlichkeitsmessung mit und ohne aspektische Indexierung (1998) 0.00 
    0.0016182694 = product of:
  0.02427404 = sum of:
    0.0098013915 = product of:
      0.019602783 = sum of:
        0.019602783 = weight(_text_:29 in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019602783 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014472648 = product of:
      0.02170897 = sum of:
        0.0021061886 = weight(_text_:a in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0021061886 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
        0.019602783 = weight(_text_:29 in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019602783 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Date
    4. 1.1999 19:31:29
    Type
    a
  7. Hudon, M.: Conceptual compatibility in controlled language tools used to index and access the content of moving image collections (2004) 0.00 
    0.0012427825 = product of:
  0.018641736 = sum of:
    0.0073510436 = product of:
      0.014702087 = sum of:
        0.014702087 = weight(_text_:29 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014702087 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011290692 = product of:
      0.016936038 = sum of:
        0.0022339502 = weight(_text_:a in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0022339502 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
        0.014702087 = weight(_text_:29 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014702087 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Five controlled vocabularies currently used for content representation in collections of non art moving images were examined to determine their level of conceptual compatibility. Methods borrowed from previous research in the area of indexing language compatibility were used. Quantitative data and qualitative observations allowed us to estimate more precisely and realistically the actual degree of conceptual redundancy in these indexing languages. It was found that the conceptual overlap is high enough to justify the pursuit of research and development work an a common basic indexing and access language that could be used to name objects, events, categories of persons, and relations most frequently depicted in non art moving image collections.
    Date
    29. 8.2004 16:17:19
    Type
    a
  8. Iivonen, M.; Kivimäki, K.: Common entities and missing properties : similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts (1998) 0.00 
    0.0012137021 = product of:
  0.018205531 = sum of:
    0.0073510436 = product of:
      0.014702087 = sum of:
        0.014702087 = weight(_text_:29 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014702087 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010854486 = product of:
      0.01628173 = sum of:
        0.0015796415 = weight(_text_:a in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0015796415 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
        0.014702087 = weight(_text_:29 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014702087 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Date
    24. 2.1999 21:29:51
    Type
    a
  9. Evedove, P.R. Dal; Evedove Tartarotti, R.C. Dal; Lopes Fujita, M.S.: Verbal protocols in Brazilian information science : a perspective from indexing studies (2018) 0.00 
    0.0011985583 = product of:
  0.017978372 = sum of:
    0.016985506 = weight(_text_:u in 4783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016985506 = score(doc=4783,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 4783, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4783)
    9.928669E-4 = product of:
      0.0029786006 = sum of:
        0.0029786006 = weight(_text_:a in 4783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029786006 = score(doc=4783,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4783, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4783)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
    Type
    a
  10. Ansari, M.: Matching between assigned descriptors and title keywords in medical theses (2005) 0.00 
    0.0010837349 = product of:
  0.016256023 = sum of:
    0.00612587 = product of:
      0.01225174 = sum of:
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010130152 = product of:
      0.015195228 = sum of:
        0.002943488 = weight(_text_:a in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002943488 = score(doc=4739,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    Date
    3.12.2005 19:38:29
    Type
    a
  11. Lee, D.H.; Schleyer, T.: Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing : a comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers (2012) 0.00 
    0.0010699236 = product of:
  0.016048854 = sum of:
    0.00612587 = product of:
      0.01225174 = sum of:
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009922984 = product of:
      0.014884476 = sum of:
        0.0026327355 = weight(_text_:a in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0026327355 = score(doc=383,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.
    Date
    26. 8.2012 14:29:37
    Type
    a
  12. Biagetti, M.T.: Indexing and scientific research needs (2006) 0.00 
    0.0010487385 = product of:
  0.015731076 = sum of:
    0.014862318 = weight(_text_:u in 235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014862318 = score(doc=235,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 235, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=235)
    8.6875854E-4 = product of:
      0.0026062755 = sum of:
        0.0026062755 = weight(_text_:a in 235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0026062755 = score(doc=235,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 235, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=235)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  13. Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002) 0.00 
    9.6685474E-4 = product of:
  0.014502821 = sum of:
    0.0024503479 = product of:
      0.0049006958 = sum of:
        0.0049006958 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049006958 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.012052473 = sum of:
      0.0022951658 = weight(_text_:a in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0022951658 = score(doc=1858,freq=38.0), product of:
          0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.017922899 = queryNorm
          0.11106029 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
              38.0 = termFreq=38.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.0049006958 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049006958 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.017922899 = queryNorm
          0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.0048566107 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0048566107 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.017922899 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    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.
    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)
  14. Rodriguez Bravo, B.: ¬The visibility of women in indexing languages (2006) 0.00 
    9.194817E-4 = product of:
  0.013792224 = sum of:
    0.012739129 = weight(_text_:u in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012739129 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
    0.0010530944 = product of:
      0.003159283 = sum of:
        0.003159283 = weight(_text_:a in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003159283 = score(doc=263,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    This article analyses how gender matters are handled in indexing languages. The examples chosen were the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the UNESCO Thesaurus (UT) and the European Women's Thesaurus (EWT). The study is based on an analysis of the entries Man/Men and Woman/Women, their subdivisions and established relationship appearing under these entries. Other headings or descriptors are also listed when they allude to men or women but the gender sense occupies only second or third place in the entry, in the shape of an adjective or a second noun. A lack of symmetry, in the treatment of gender is noted, with recommendations being made for equal status for men and women, which should, however, avoid unnecessary enumerations.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  15. Haanen, E.: Specificiteit en consistentie : een kwantitatief oderzoek naar trefwoordtoekenning door UBA en UBN (1991) 0.00 
    7.540292E-4 = product of:
  0.011310438 = sum of:
    0.0103175705 = product of:
      0.020635141 = sum of:
        0.020635141 = weight(_text_:online in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020635141 = score(doc=4778,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    9.928669E-4 = product of:
      0.0029786006 = sum of:
        0.0029786006 = weight(_text_:a in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029786006 = score(doc=4778,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Online public access catalogues enable users to undertake subject searching by classification schedules, natural language, or controlled language terminology. In practice the 1st method is little used. Controlled language systems require indexers to index specifically and consistently. A comparative survey was made of indexing practices at Amsterdam and Mijmegen university libraries. On average Amsterdam assigned each document 3.5 index terms against 1.8 at Nijmegen. This discrepancy in indexing policy is the result of long-standing practices in each institution. Nijmegen has failed to utilise the advantages offered by online cataloges
    Type
    a
  16. McCarthy, C.: ¬The realibility factor in subject access (1986) 0.00 
    6.664739E-4 = product of:
  0.009997108 = sum of:
    0.009119529 = product of:
      0.018239059 = sum of:
        0.018239059 = weight(_text_:online in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018239059 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    8.775785E-4 = product of:
      0.0026327355 = sum of:
        0.0026327355 = weight(_text_:a in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0026327355 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    For truly effective subject access, it is essential that books on any given topic be brought together consistently under the same subject heading. With the advent of online catalogs, this goal has assumed new importance but has also become easier to achieve
    Type
    a
  17. Rowley, J.: ¬The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited : a perspective on information retrieval practice and research (1994) 0.00 
    6.039115E-4 = product of:
  0.009058672 = sum of:
    0.007897745 = product of:
      0.01579549 = sum of:
        0.01579549 = weight(_text_:online in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01579549 = score(doc=7151,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0011609273 = product of:
      0.003482782 = sum of:
        0.003482782 = weight(_text_:a in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003482782 = score(doc=7151,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases
    Type
    a
  18. Boyce, B.R.; McLain, J.P.: Entry point depth and online search using a controlled vocabulary (1989) 0.00 
    5.1715324E-4 = product of:
  0.007757298 = sum of:
    0.0063836705 = product of:
      0.012767341 = sum of:
        0.012767341 = weight(_text_:online in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012767341 = score(doc=2287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0013736277 = product of:
      0.004120883 = sum of:
        0.004120883 = weight(_text_:a in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004120883 = score(doc=2287,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.
    Type
    a
  19. Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996) 0.00 
    4.978899E-4 = product of:
  0.014936696 = sum of:
    0.014936696 = product of:
      0.022405043 = sum of:
        0.0029786006 = weight(_text_:a in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029786006 = score(doc=7247,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
        0.019426443 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019426443 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    Abstract
    Describes an experiment comparing the performance of automatic full-text indexing software for personal computers with the human intellectual assignment of indexing terms in each document in a collection. Considers the times required to index the document, to retrieve documents satisfying 5 typical foreseen information needs, and the recall and precision ratios of searching. The software used is QuickFinder facility in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
    Type
    a
  20. Deaves, J.C.; Pache, J.E.: Chemical and numerical indexing for the INSPEC database (1989) 0.00 
    4.9651193E-4 = product of:
  0.007447678 = sum of:
    0.0063836705 = product of:
      0.012767341 = sum of:
        0.012767341 = weight(_text_:online in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012767341 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0010640075 = product of:
      0.0031920224 = sum of:
        0.0031920224 = weight(_text_:a in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0031920224 = score(doc=2289,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    The wealth of chemical information on the INSPEC database is easily retrieved using the printed subject indexes to the associated abstract journals. However, this subject indexing is insufficient for machine retrieval, and free-text searching has special difficulties. An easy-to-use retrieval system has been developed which overcomes many problems, especially the retrieval of non-stoichiometric compositions, which are a feature solid-state chemistry. The scheme is limited to inorganic material, but allows flexibility and identification of dopants, interfaces and surfaces or substrates. At the same time, a system has been introduced for the online retrieval of numerical data included in the data base. This has successfully standardized the way in which such data is held for searching, enabling further refinement of searches where numerical information is significant
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 90
  • ? 1
  • b 1
  • m 1
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes