Search (58 results, page 1 of 3)

0.09957343 = product of:
  0.14936015 = sum of:
    0.12575619 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12575619 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33191046 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05807226 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
    0.023603968 = product of:
      0.047207937 = sum of:
        0.047207937 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047207937 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20335917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.092023626 = product of:
  0.13803543 = sum of:
    0.104796834 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104796834 = score(doc=2127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33191046 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05807226 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
    0.033238593 = product of:
      0.06647719 = sum of:
        0.06647719 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06647719 = score(doc=2127,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study demonstrates an improved conceptual foundation to support well-structured analysis of image topicality. First we present a conceptual framework for analyzing image topicality, explicating the layers, the perspectives, and the topical relevance relationships involved in modeling the topicality of art images. We adapt a generic relevance typology to image analysis by extending it with definitions and relationships specific to the visual art domain and integrating it with schemes of image-text relationships that are important for image subject indexing. We then apply the adapted typology to analyze the topical relevance relationships between 11 art images and 768 image tags assigned by art historians and librarians. The original contribution of our work is the topical structure analysis of image tags that allows the viewer to more easily grasp the content, context, and meaning of an image and quickly tune into aspects of interest; it could also guide both the indexer and the searcher to specify image tags/descriptors in a more systematic and precise manner and thus improve the match between the two parties. An additional contribution is systematically examining and integrating the variety of image-text relationships from a relevance perspective. The paper concludes with implications for relational indexing and social tagging.

0.055891644 = product of:
  0.16767493 = sum of:
    0.16767493 = weight(_text_:systematic in 321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16767493 = score(doc=321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33191046 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05807226 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=321)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper traces the history of the concept of intellectual level in cataloging and classification in the United States. Past cataloging codes, subject-heading practice, and classification systems have provided library users with little systematic information concerning the intellectual level or intended audience of works. Reasons for this omission are discussed, and arguments are developed to show that this kind of information would be a useful addition to the catalog record of the present and the future.

0.04297003 = product of:
  0.06445505 = sum of:
    0.036251165 = product of:
      0.10875349 = sum of:
        0.10875349 = weight(_text_:objects in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10875349 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3086582 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.028203882 = product of:
      0.056407765 = sum of:
        0.056407765 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056407765 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Analysis of user viewing and query-matching behavior furnishes additional evidence that the relevance of retrieved images for system users may arise from descriptions of objects and content-based elements that are not evident or not even present in the image. This investigation looks at how users assign pre-determined query terms to retrieved images, as well as looking at a post-retrieval process of image engagement to user cognitive assessments of meaningful terms. Additionally, affective/emotion-based query terms appear to be an important descriptive category for image retrieval. A system for capturing (eliciting) human interpretations derived from cognitive engagements with viewed images could further enhance the efficiency of image retrieval systems stemming from traditional indexing methods and technology-based content extraction algorithms. An approach to such a system is posited.

0.03580836 = product of:
  0.053712536 = sum of:
    0.030209303 = product of:
      0.09062791 = sum of:
        0.09062791 = weight(_text_:objects in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09062791 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3086582 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.023503233 = product of:
      0.047006465 = sum of:
        0.047006465 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047006465 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this paper a framework for the construction and organization of knowledge organization and representation languages in the context of digital photograph collections is presented. It analyses exigencies of photographs as documentary objects, as well as several models of indexing, different proposals of languages and a theoretical revision of ontologies in this research field, in relation to visual documents. In considering the photograph as an analysis object, it is appropriate to study all its attributes: features, components or properties of an objeet that can be represented in an information processing system. The attributes which are related to visual features include cognitive and affective answers and elements that describe spatial, semantic, symbolic or emotional features about a photograph. In any case, it is necessary to treat: a) morphological and material attributes (emulsion, state of preservation); b) biographical attributes: (school or trend, publication or exhibition); c) attributes of content: what and how a photograph says something; d) relational attributes: visual documents establish relationships with other documents that can be analysed in order to understand them.

0.031022687 = product of:
  0.093068056 = sum of:
    0.093068056 = product of:
      0.18613611 = sum of:
        0.18613611 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18613611 = score(doc=1024,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.8373461 = fieldWeight in 1024, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper discusses the notion of steps in indexing and reveals that the document-centered approach to indexing is prevalent and argues that the document-centered approach is problematic because it blocks out context-dependent factors in the indexing process. A domain-centered approach to indexing is presented as an alternative and the paper discusses how this approach includes a broader range of analyses and how it requires a new set of actions from using this approach; analysis of the domain, users and indexers. The paper concludes that the two-step procedure to indexing is insufficient to explain the indexing process and suggests that the domain-centered approach offers a guide for indexers that can help them manage the complexity of indexing.

0.02820388 = product of:
  0.08461164 = sum of:
    0.08461164 = product of:
      0.16922328 = sum of:
        0.16922328 = weight(_text_:indexing in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16922328 = score(doc=474,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.76126254 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper is divided into 3 parts. The 1st develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 sets of contrasts: user (need)-oriented vs. document-oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs for the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. The 2nd part establishes the centrality of relationships to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression inboth natural languages and indexing languages. The use of relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. The 3rd part illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. Although not a panacea, the adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.028029244 = product of:
  0.08408773 = sum of:
    0.08408773 = product of:
      0.16817546 = sum of:
        0.16817546 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16817546 = score(doc=2926,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.7565488 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The indexing process consists of the comprehension of the document to be indexed, followed by the production of a set of index terms. Differences between academic indexing and back-of-the-book indexing are discussed. Text comprehension is a branch of human information processing, and it is argued that the model of text comprehension and production debeloped by van Dijk and Kintsch can form the basis for a cognitive process model of indexing. Strategies for testing such a model are suggested

0.027139198 = product of:
  0.08141759 = sum of:
    0.08141759 = product of:
      0.16283518 = sum of:
        0.16283518 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16283518 = score(doc=1590,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.7325252 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.

0.025070116 = product of:
  0.07521035 = sum of:
    0.07521035 = product of:
      0.1504207 = sum of:
        0.1504207 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1504207 = score(doc=3011,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 3011, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

While the literature identifies some broad approaches to subject analysis there is little supporting empirical evidence and few attempts to explicate any specifiable procedures. A productive step forward with indexing research would be to begin by examining how indexers actually undertake the process of subject analysis and to explore systematically factors that guide and influence this process. This would shed some light on a theory of subject analysis, clarify some of the central concepts of indexing, and provide an intelligent knowledge-base for effective, academic indexing practice

0.025070116 = product of:
  0.07521035 = sum of:
    0.07521035 = product of:
      0.1504207 = sum of:
        0.1504207 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1504207 = score(doc=3991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.025070116 = product of:
  0.07521035 = sum of:
    0.07521035 = product of:
      0.1504207 = sum of:
        0.1504207 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1504207 = score(doc=5647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 5647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.025070116 = product of:
  0.07521035 = sum of:
    0.07521035 = product of:
      0.1504207 = sum of:
        0.1504207 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1504207 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.025070116 = product of:
  0.07521035 = sum of:
    0.07521035 = product of:
      0.1504207 = sum of:
        0.1504207 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1504207 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.024525588 = product of:
  0.07357676 = sum of:
    0.07357676 = product of:
      0.14715353 = sum of:
        0.14715353 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14715353 = score(doc=2021,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.6619802 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Subject analysis is the basis of all classifying and indexing techniques and is equally applicable to automatic and manual indexing systems. This book discusses subject analysis as an activity in its own right, independent of any indexing language. It examines the theoretical basis of subject analysis using the concepts of forms of knowledge as applicable to classification schemes.

LCSH

Indexing

Subject

Indexing

0.021936353 = product of:
  0.065809056 = sum of:
    0.065809056 = product of:
      0.13161811 = sum of:
        0.13161811 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13161811 = score(doc=1841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 1841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Trends in subject indexing: contents analysis

0.021936353 = product of:
  0.065809056 = sum of:
    0.065809056 = product of:
      0.13161811 = sum of:
        0.13161811 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13161811 = score(doc=3633,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.021936353 = product of:
  0.065809056 = sum of:
    0.065809056 = product of:
      0.13161811 = sum of:
        0.13161811 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13161811 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.021936353 = product of:
  0.065809056 = sum of:
    0.065809056 = product of:
      0.13161811 = sum of:
        0.13161811 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13161811 = score(doc=1961,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The common view of the 'aboutness' of documents is that the index entries (or classifications) assigned to documents represent or indicate in some way the total contents of documents; indexing and classifying are seen as processes involving the 'summerization' of the texts of documents. In this paper an alternative concept of 'aboutness' is proposed based on an analysis of the linguistic organization of texts, which is felt to be more appropriate in many indexing environments (particularly in non-specialized libraries and information services) and which has implications for the evaluation of the effectiveness of indexing systems

0.021711357 = product of:
  0.06513407 = sum of:
    0.06513407 = product of:
      0.13026814 = sum of:
        0.13026814 = weight(_text_:indexing in 8263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13026814 = score(doc=8263,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 8263, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An examination of some nonbook materials with respect to an aboutness model of indexing leads to the conclusion that there are instances that defy subject indexing. These occur not so much because of the nature of the medium per se but because it is being used for nondocumentary purposes, or, when being used for such purposes, the subject referenced is nonlexical