Search (47 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=4824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4824, 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=4824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the InfoAccess Project at the Univ of Saskatchewan Libraries which compared searching of manual and automated indexes by 22 undergraduate psychology students to determine their searching preferences by ranking 'Psychological abstracts' in 3 formats: print, CD-ROM and a locally mounted tape service called InfoAccess. Their satisfaction regarding the physical environment, equipment, and instructional aids was also recorded. Users preferred to search with CD-ROM, but found InfoAccess to be an acceptable alternative

0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, 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=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings

0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4642, 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=4642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Indexer. 21(1998) no.1, S.22-23

0.005596308 = product of:
  0.022385232 = sum of:
    0.022385232 = product of:
      0.044770464 = sum of:
        0.044770464 = weight(_text_:software in 223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044770464 = score(doc=223,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.24794699 = fieldWeight in 223, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=223)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

If you are an indexer who is accustomed to working in solitude with static words, you might face some big surprises in the production of a multimedia CD-ROM. You will not be working alone. You will not be working from a manuscript. Your dexterity with a dedicated software tool for indexing will be irrelevant. The coding or tagging might not be your worry either, because it will likely be done by members of a separate technical staff. The CD-ROM can currently hold 660 megabytes of data. Its production is a massive team effort. Because of the sheer volume of data involved, it is unlikely that one indexer working alone can handle the job in a reasonable period of time. The database for the actual index entries is likely to have been designed specifically for the project at hand, so the indexers will learn the software tools on the job. The entire project will probably be onscreen. So, if you choose to thrust yourself into this teeming amalgam of production, what are the prerequisites and what new things can you expect to learn? CD-ROM is an amorphous new medium with few rules. Your most important resume items might be your flexibility, imagination, and love of words. What remains unchanged from traditional back-of-the-book indexing is the need for empathy with the user; you will still need to come up with exactly the right word for the situation. What is new here is the situation: you might learn to envision the words that correspond to non-textual media such as graphics, photos, video clips, and musical passages. And because you will be dealing with vast amounts of textual and sensory data, you might find yourself rethinking the nature and purpose of an index as a whole. CD-ROM production can take many forms; three will be discussed here

0.005395815 = product of:
  0.02158326 = sum of:
    0.02158326 = product of:
      0.04316652 = sum of:
        0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04316652 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9. 4.2000 17:22:00

0.005395815 = product of:
  0.02158326 = sum of:
    0.02158326 = product of:
      0.04316652 = sum of:
        0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04316652 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.12.2007 19:25:22

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The "Relative Index" of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is investigated over the span of its lifetime in 22 editions of the DDC as to its character as a concept indexing system, its provision of conceptual contexts for the terms it lists, and the way in which the index intersects with special tables of categories used in the system. Striking features of the index that are discussed include how the locater function of an index is expressed in it, its practice of including concepts that have not been given specific notational locations in the system, its two methods of providing conceptual contexts for indexed terms (by means of the notation of the system and by the insertion of enhancement terms that portray conceptual context), and how the index has intersected with three types of special tables of categories in the system. Critical issues raised include the indexing of constructed or synthesized complex concepts, inconsistencies in how enhancement terms are portrayed and the absence of them in some instances, the problem of equating conceptual context with disciplinary context, and problems associated with not indexing one type of special table. Summary and conclusions are extended to problems that arise in studying the index.