Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02000121 = product of:
  0.08000484 = sum of:
    0.08000484 = weight(_text_:search in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08000484 = score(doc=2475,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the preparation of a book on how to do a literature search, many inconsistencies were found in the assignment of subject terms. The Library of Congress Subject Headings is cited for not bringing computer languages into a consistent pattern. BASIC and FORTRAN are treated differently in their see also references and are without references to the words "computers" or "computer." Also index terms for the literature search on the "search for extraterrestrial life" showed inconsistent patterns in indexing. Catalogers and indexers need to review the work they are currently publishing and try to decide how to bring some standardization to the construction of subject terms. There is a need to provide a single thesaurus for all English index terms.

0.00989803 = product of:
  0.03959212 = sum of:
    0.03959212 = weight(_text_:search in 2322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03959212 = score(doc=2322,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2322, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2322)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The introduction of computerized post-coordination has solved many of the problems of pre-coordinated subject access. However, the adoption of computerized post-coordination results in the loss of some pre-coordination benefits. Specifically, the effect of hiding terms within the context of others is lost in post-coodination which give lead status to every document term. This results in spurious matches of terms out of context. Library patrons and Internet searchers are increasingly dissatisfied with subject access performance, in part because of unmanageably large retrieval sets. The need to enhance precision and limit the size of retrieval sets motivates this work which proposes partial coordination, an approach which incorporates the advantages of computer search with the ability of pre-coordination to limit spurious partial matches and thereby enhance precision

0.008248359 = product of:
  0.032993436 = sum of:
    0.032993436 = weight(_text_:search in 2187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032993436 = score(doc=2187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2187)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A subject indexing language (SIL) is an artificial language used for formulating names of subjects and is composed of (a) a vocabulary, (b) a list of elementary categories, and (c) the rules of syntax. A string indexing language is an SIL, whose expressions are multiple overlappimg index entries, constructed accordingly to explicit syntax rules. PRECIS, developed by Austin, and POPSI, developed by Bhattacharyya, are two such string indexing languages. DSIS is a more versatile version of the POPSI system, developed by Devadason. There have been several attempts to compare and evaluate the superiority of one system over another, with the exception that none of these tried to compare their performances from the searcher's point of view. This present study tries to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of printed subject indexes produced by PRECIS and DSIS on a non-empirical basis and based on the following five major characteristics of index entries identified by Craven as desirable from the searcher's viewpoint: (1) predicitibility, (2) collocation, (3) clarity, (4) succinctness, and (5) eliminability. A representative sample of 600 documents (both macro and micro), chosen from three different social science subject fields, has been used as the test data. The main points of discussion are (a) the term structure, (b) the term relationships, and (c) the entry structure, generated by the two systems. On the whole, a PRECIS index performs better than a DSIS index in terms of most of the above characteristics. It has been concluded that the user will search the former more efficiently and effectively than the latter

0.0050237724 = product of:
  0.02009509 = sum of:
    0.02009509 = product of:
      0.04019018 = sum of:
        0.04019018 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04019018 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, 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=4411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37