Search (66 results, page 3 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Register"
  1. Craven, T. C.: String indexing (1986) 0.00 
    0.0016040723 = product of:
  0.0112285055 = sum of:
    0.0112285055 = product of:
      0.056142528 = sum of:
        0.056142528 = weight(_text_:system in 5604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056142528 = score(doc=5604,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.49211764 = fieldWeight in 5604, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5604)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    LCSH
    NEPHIS (Indexing system)
    Subject
    NEPHIS (Indexing system)
  2. Craven, T.C.: NEPHIS: a nested phrase indexing system (1977) 0.00 
    0.0015879505 = product of:
  0.011115653 = sum of:
    0.011115653 = product of:
      0.055578265 = sum of:
        0.055578265 = weight(_text_:system in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055578265 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 1333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1333)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  3. Anderson, J.D.: Indexing, teaching of, See: Information retrieval design (2002) 0.00 
    0.0014647568 = product of:
  0.010253297 = sum of:
    0.010253297 = product of:
      0.051266484 = sum of:
        0.051266484 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051266484 = score(doc=550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 550, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=550)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  4. Z39.4-199X: Indexes and related information retrieval devices (1993) 0.00 
    0.0014647568 = product of:
  0.010253297 = sum of:
    0.010253297 = product of:
      0.051266484 = sum of:
        0.051266484 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051266484 = score(doc=8518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 8518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8518)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  5. Stelmach, M.: ¬The application of index entries to search and retrieval of books and book content (1999) 0.00 
    0.0014647568 = product of:
  0.010253297 = sum of:
    0.010253297 = product of:
      0.051266484 = sum of:
        0.051266484 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051266484 = score(doc=6311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 6311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6311)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  6. Anderson, J.D.; Radford, G.: Back-of-the-book indexing with the nested phrase indexing system (NEPHIS) (1988) 0.00 
    0.0012832579 = product of:
  0.008982805 = sum of:
    0.008982805 = product of:
      0.044914022 = sum of:
        0.044914022 = weight(_text_:system in 653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044914022 = score(doc=653,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 653, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=653)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    NEPHIS, Craven's Nested Phrase Indexing System, transfers one more indexing procedure, the creation of individual index entries, to computer algorithm, permitting the human indexer to concentrate on the intellectual task of analyzing text and naming its important features. Experience at Rutgers University has shown that novice indexers can learn NEPHIS quite quickly and can use it to produce acceptable indexes
  7. Dienelt, O.: ¬Ein Workshop über Indexing (2003) 0.00 
    0.0012269 = product of:
  0.0085883 = sum of:
    0.0085883 = product of:
      0.0171766 = sum of:
        0.0171766 = weight(_text_:22 in 1502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0171766 = score(doc=1502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1502, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Content
    "Unter der Leitung von Frank Merrett von der Socieryy of Indexers (www.indexers.org.uk), die in Sheffield ihren Hauptsitz hat, fand am 22. Januar in London ein Workshop statt, in dem Einblicke in das Indexing (Registererstellung) ermöglicht wurden. SechsTeilnehmerinnen und drei Teilnehmer (Bibliothekare, Katalogisierer, angehende Indexer, Benutzer von Indices) bekamen durch Merrett neben den grundlegenden Dingen auch ein wenig Einblick in die Berufswirklichkeit eines Indexers vermittelt. Zunächst wurden einige Definitionen dessen, was ein Index ist, angesprochen: Ein Index (Register) ist eine systematische Anordnung von Eintragungen, die es dem Benutzer ermöglichen, Informationen in einem Dokument zu finden (nach Norm BS ISO 999,1996). Auch andere Definitionen besagen, dass die im Hauptteil eines Dokuments enthaltenen Informationen so herausgefiltert werden sollen, dass durch die Benutzung des Registers ein möglichst benutzerfreundlicher Zugang zum Hauptteil erfolgen kann. Ein Index soll den einen Benutzer entscheiden lassen, ob ein Dokument etwas für ihn Interessantes enthält. Dem anderen soll es dazu dienen, das Gelesene wieder aufzufrischen. Ein Index muss beiden gerecht werden. Nach Eintreffen des Materials vom Verlag (sehr oft als Papierausdruck) beginnt der erste Schritt, der vom persönlichen Arbeitsstil des Indexers abhängt. Manche beginnen sofort beim Lesen mit dem Niederschreiben von Begriffen, oft unter Verwendung von Software (Macrex, Cindex), andere markieren oder unterstreichen zunächst die relevanten Begriffe. Hier beginnt die eigentliche Arbeit, die darin besteht, wichtige Informationen aus dem Text herauszufiltern und so aufzubereiten, dass ein Buchleser zu Wichtigem hingeführt wird. Dazu gehören Entscheidungen wie zum Beispiel »was ist wichtig«, »was kann/ muss weggelassen werden«, »wo müssen Siehe- beziehungsweise Siehe-auch-Verweise eingebrachtwerden«. Bibliothekarisch gesehen, ist dies Sacherschließung und zugleich formale Erfassung, letztlich das Aufbauen eines Kreuzkatalogs. So wie ein Sacherschließer muss auch ein Indexer ständig überlegen, mit welchen Begriffen er dem Benutzer des Registers einen guten Zugang zur Information verschaffen kann. Ein gutes Verständnis des Faches, das in der Vorlage behandelt wird, ist deshalb unbedingt notwendig. Das wurde anhand einiger Seiten geübt, genauso wie das Aufbe-reiten des Index. Äußerste Genauigkeit ist hier nötig. Anhand eines fertigen Index mit eingebauten Ungenauigkeiten wurde geübt, sehr genau hinzuschauen und kleinste Ungenauigkeiten zu erkennen. Merrett sagte, dass ein gut geschriebenes Buch besser zu bearbeiten sei als eines, das einen weniger guten Hauptteil hat. Oft hat ein Indexer nur zwei Wochen Zeit für die Erstellung eines Registers. Die wenigsten dürften allerdings ständig von morgens bis abends an einem Index arbeiten, und nur sehr wenige verdienen ausschließlich mit dem Erstellen von Registern ihren Lebensunterhalt. Meistens ist dies ein Nebenjob. Nach Frank Merrett sind die Verhandlungen mit einem Verlag über einen zu erstellenden Index recht vorsichtig zu führen. Insbesondere über die Termine (Eintreffen des Manuskripts, Abliefern des Produkts) sowie die Form der Vorlage (welches Format, welcher Umfang) muss sich ein Indexer absichern, um keine Überraschungen zu erleben. So kann es sein, dass die Vorlage nicht als Buch, sondern als ein Stapel von Druckbogen, ungefalzt und unsortiert, ankommt. Auch das Honorar muß vom Indexer in Anbetracht des zu erwartenden Aufwandes verhandelt werden. Indexer ist keine geschützte Bezeichnung, deshalb kann sich jeder so nennen. Die Prüfungen, die man bei der Sociery of Indexers ablegen kann, sind aber ein Qualitätsnachweis. Die Society kann durch das Aufführen der Namen und Spezialgebiete auf der Homepage beziehungsweise in einem Verzeichnis einiges für die Mitglieder tun. Die Sociery legt auf das Kontakthalten mit Verlegern großen Wert, um dort auf die Dienste der Indexer hinzuweisen. Um Aufträge muß sich aber jeder selbst kümmern.
  8. Parsons, J.: Finding your way around the information maze : indexes as a signpost to information retrieval (1992) 0.00 
    0.0011837021 = product of:
  0.008285915 = sum of:
    0.008285915 = product of:
      0.04142957 = sum of:
        0.04142957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04142957 = score(doc=3053,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Consideration of some of the choices for computerization of indexes, including word processing, records administration systems, and text-retrieval packages. Some of the general concepts relating to indexes are also covered, including various approaches to indexing such as subject, word, and hierarchical indexing, and the use of coordinated themes. The options available within each type of computerization of indexing are also specified
  9. Clarke, M.: Retrieving information from scientific periodicals (1996) 0.00 
    0.0010462549 = product of:
  0.007323784 = sum of:
    0.007323784 = product of:
      0.03661892 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=7185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 7185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7185)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Considers the indexing of scientific and medical periodicals, covering the need for indexes, the effect on information retrieval of the electronic revolution, types of journals and entries, the process of indexing, cumulation and publisher-indexer relations
  10. Odini, C.: ¬The performance of manual indexes and online databases in information retrieval (1994) 0.00 
    0.0010357393 = product of:
  0.007250175 = sum of:
    0.007250175 = product of:
      0.036250874 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=949,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Reports a comparative study carried out at Sheffield University to compare the performance of 2 manual indexes and 3 related online databases in the retrieval of records in the technological subject of: Cathodic protection of concrete structures. The manual sources were: Engineering Index and Current Technology Index; and the online databases were: COMPENDEX, NTIS and SCISEARCH. Performance was measured in terms of relative recall and prescision. While online searches showed some considerable advantages over manual searches, the manual sources showed some considerable advantages over manual searches, the manual sources still manifested some qualities which render them valuable. Emphasizes the selection of databases on the basis of a compromise between high recall and high precision, and ultimately between both of these factors and cost
  11. Odini, C.: ¬The performance of manual indexes and online databases in information retrieval (1997) 0.00 
    0.0010357393 = product of:
  0.007250175 = sum of:
    0.007250175 = product of:
      0.036250874 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=3905,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3905, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3905)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Reports a comparative study carried out at Sheffield University to compare the performance of 2 manual indexes and 3 related online databases in the retrieval of records in the technological subject of: Cathodic protection of concrete structures. The manual sources were: Engineering Index and Current Technology Index; and the online databases were: COMPENDEX, NTIS and SCISEARCH. Performance was measured in terms of relative recall and prescision. While online searches showed some considerable advantages over manual searches, the manual sources showed some considerable advantages over manual searches, the manual sources still manifested some qualities which render them valuable. Emphasizes the selection of databases on the basis of a compromise between high recall and high precision, and ultimately between both of these factors and cost
  12. Imholtz, A.A.: Indexer nascitur, not fit : Lewis Carroll as indexer again (1996) 0.00 
    9.0740033E-4 = product of:
  0.006351802 = sum of:
    0.006351802 = product of:
      0.03175901 = sum of:
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 6935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=6935,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 6935, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6935)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The author Lewis Carroll produced humorous indexes to his late novels, childhood magazines, and to Tennyson's poem 'In Memoriam'. He also produced an indexing system for his personal correspondence. Details the procedure he followed in this letter register and reports on a study of it which shows that he employed, in embryonic form, 20th century database concepts
  13. Anderson, J.D.: Guidelines for indexes and related information retrieval devices (1997) 0.00 
    8.877766E-4 = product of:
  0.006214436 = sum of:
    0.006214436 = product of:
      0.03107218 = sum of:
        0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03107218 = score(doc=3807,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    This technical report provides guidelines for the content, organization, and presentation of indexes used for the retrieval of documents and parts of documents. It deals with the principles of indexing, regardless of the type of material indexed, the indexing method used (intellectual analysis, machine algorithm, or both), the medium of the index, or the method of presentation for searching. It emphasizes 4 processes essential for all indexes: comprehensive design, vocabulary management, and the provision of systax. It includes definitions of indexes and of their parts, attributes, and aspects; a uniform vocabulary; treatment of the nature and variety of indexes; and recommendations regarding the design, organization, and presentation of indexes. It does not suggest guidelines for every detail or technique of indexing. These can be determined for each index on the basis of factors covered in the technical report
  14. Bell, H.: On the indexability of butterflies (1992) 0.00 
    8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=3847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3847)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Most publishers, who are cost-conscious, and the majority of authors, who are creativity-conscious, oppos indexes for fiction. However, maintains, that there is a case to be made for the indexing of serious fiction, whose readers have the same needs for information retrieval with regard to characters, places and events, as readers of biographies and histories
  15. Hartmann, K.: PDS: Retrievalsoftware für die Pressedatenbank (1984) 0.00 
    8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=5185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5185)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die PDS - Pressedatenbank Retrieval Software - ist eine neue Informationsdatenbank-Software. Sie ist einsatzfähig für Literaturhinweise und Volltextspeicherung. Sie läuft auf IBM-kompatiblem Rechnern. Sie wurde auf dem Hintergrund zehnjähriger Erfahrung im Umgang mit Datenbanken entworfen. PDS verfügt über eine einzigartige phonetische Abfragemöglichkeit, über ein Programm zur Herstellung gedruckter Register und eine Schnittstelle zu dem elektronischen Massenspeicher MEGADOC von Philips. In der G+J Pressedatenbank sind derzeit mehr als 1,4 Mio Datensätze gespeichert. Die G+J Dokumentation versorgt mehr als 800 Redakteure mit Textinformation und Bildern
  16. Weinberg, B.H.: Why postcoordination fails the searcher (1995) 0.00 
    8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=1942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1942, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1942)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Postcoordination, in which terms are combined at the searching stage rather than at the time of indexing, has been the main form of database access since the 1950s. Reasons for the failure of postcoordinate searches include the absence of specified relationships between terms, the complexity of formulating Boolean searches, and the high frequency of terms in large databases. Recent writers on indexing electronic text have called for precoordination to enhance the precision of retrieval. Among precoordinate indexing structures, a book index with coined modifications is the most precise. The time and cost associated with such customized analysis will, however, limit its application in the electronic environment
  17. Earle, R.E.; Berry, R.; Nichols, M.C.: Indexing online information (1996) 0.00 
    8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=5126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    To take full advantage of search facilities, online indexes can be designed with a flat structure in which each index entry is clearly worded and makes use of keywords from the subject matter. Indexers can include additional keywords as synonyms that point to the relevant index entries. When indexers take advantage of these concepts and when index users clearly understand what to expect from online indexes, then the indexs become an extremely powerful retrieval medium
  18. Lavallee, C.: Indexation manuelle et indexation assistee par ordinateur : comparison de la performance de deux index d'une monographie (1996) 0.00 
    8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=740,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Reports an experiment, conducted in Mar 95 in the context of a course at the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Montreal, which evaluates the information retrieval capabilities of a manual index and a semi automated index developed according to the Bennion method. The application of a formula developed by Bennion shows that the indexes are almost identical
  19. Jorgensen, C.; Liddy, E.D.: ¬An analysis of information seeking behaviours in index use, or opening Pandora's Box (1994) 0.00 
    7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 8500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=8500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 8500, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8500)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Gives an overview of a research project which had aimed to: empirically investigate book-index usage behaviours and the extent to which specific print index features affect a user's search for information; and to examine these same features in an electronic environment. Aims to determine the optimum specifications for indexes in electronic texts by gathering evidence from a controlled user study. Presents a subset of results from index use in both print and electronic formats. Suggests a preliminay model representing users' behaviours when using an index and suggests implications for system design
  20. Anderson, J.D.: Indexing standards : Are they possible? What good are they? Why bother? (1993) 0.00 
    7.323784E-4 = product of:
  0.0051266486 = sum of:
    0.0051266486 = product of:
      0.025633242 = sum of:
        0.025633242 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025633242 = score(doc=8087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 8087, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8087)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Discusses the nature of standards as tools to promote compatibility and improve practice, the role of research versus expert opinion in the creation of standards, the changing scope of standards for indexes in the face of the changing indexing environment, with the increasing use of automatic indexing, electronic displays, and electronic searching of non-displayed indexes. Describes the current draft of the NISO American Standard Guidelines for indexes in information retrieval (Z39.4) in terms of 3 fundamental requirements: syntax, vocabulary management and comprehensive planning and design. Concludes with comments about the nebulous concept of good and accurate indexing and whether and how standards can be used advantageously

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 59
  • d 6
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 56
  • m 8
  • n 1
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications