Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.007095774 = product of:
  0.03547887 = sum of:
    0.03547887 = product of:
      0.07095774 = sum of:
        0.07095774 = weight(_text_:etc in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07095774 = score(doc=6472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Studies of indexing neglect the first stage of the process, that is, subject analysis. In this study, novice indexers were asked to analyse three short, popular journal articles; to express the general subject as well as the primary and secondary topics in natural laguage statements; to state what influenced the analysis and to comment on the ease or difficulty of this process. The factors which influenced the process were: the subject discipline concerned, factual vs. subjective nature of the text, complexity of the subject, clarity of text, possible support offered by bibliographic apparatus such as title, etc. The findings showed that with the social science and science texts, the general subject could be determined with ease, while this was more difficult with the humanities text. Clear evidence emerged of the importance of bibliographical apparatus in defining the general subject. There was varying difficulty in determining the primary and secondarx topics

0.0067982078 = product of:
  0.03399104 = sum of:
    0.03399104 = product of:
      0.06798208 = sum of:
        0.06798208 = weight(_text_:problems in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06798208 = score(doc=5844,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.4514426 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types

0.0054937815 = product of:
  0.027468907 = sum of:
    0.027468907 = product of:
      0.054937813 = sum of:
        0.054937813 = weight(_text_:problems in 3430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054937813 = score(doc=3430,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.36482072 = fieldWeight in 3430, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die Inhaltsanalyse ist der elementare Teilprozeß der Indexierung von Dokumenten. Trotz dieser zentralen Stellung im Rahmen einer inhaltlichen Dokumenterschließung wird der Vorgang der Inhaltsanalyse in theorie und Praxis noch zu wenig beachtet. Der Grund dieser Vernachlässigung liegt im vermeintlich subjektiven Charakter des Verstehensprozesses. Zur Überwindung dieses Problems wird zunächst der genaue Gegenstand der Inhaltsanalyse bestimmt. Daraus abgeleitet lassen sich methodisch weiterführende Ansätze und Verfahren einer inhaltlichen Analyse gewinnen. Abschließend werden einige weitere Aufgaben der Inhaltsanalyse, wir z.B. eine qualitative Bewertung, behandelt

0.0048070587 = product of:
  0.024035294 = sum of:
    0.024035294 = product of:
      0.048070587 = sum of:
        0.048070587 = weight(_text_:problems in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048070587 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Comprehensiveness and consistency in newspaper indexing depend on the effectiveness of subject analysis of the news items. Discusses indexing skills required in order to identify indexable concepts. Describes practical aspects of conceptual analysis, crystalises criteria and methods for the indexing of news stories, and eludicates reasons form providing multiple subject-entries for certain news items. Suggests rules for news analysis and speedy and accurate allocation of subject headings, and illustrates the technique of dealing with complex and diversified news headings reported at intervals. As the headlines do not always indicate the real subject of a news story, the identification of indexable concepts can become arduous and cumbersome. Discusses the methods, skills and capability needed to tackle such problems

0.003954508 = product of:
  0.019772539 = sum of:
    0.019772539 = product of:
      0.039545078 = sum of:
        0.039545078 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039545078 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.002965881 = product of:
  0.014829405 = sum of:
    0.014829405 = product of:
      0.02965881 = sum of:
        0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02965881 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18